Libertarianism in Hawaii

[Kaonohi]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii, and elsewhere....

I enjoyed your post, but this part, I admit, cracked me up a bit. The thought of more laws being a path to anarchy ... well, you gotta see the amusing disconnect, no?

OK, I get it that you are kidding, of course.

For the masses, however, who don't have the mental capacities of thee and me:

"When laws arrive at the point where those that enforce the laws can no longer track all the laws they are bound to enforce, lawfullness will devolve into anarchy." (I think that's from The Federalist Papers, but not sure)

In any case, it's common sense, and it's why lawyers are richer than us.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii, and elsewhere....

I enjoyed your post, but this part, I admit, cracked me up a bit. The thought of more laws being a path to anarchy ... well, you gotta see the amusing disconnect, no?

OK, I get it that you are kidding, of course.

For the masses, however, who don't have the mental capacities of thee and me:

"When laws arrive at the point where those that enforce the laws can no longer track all the laws they are bound to enforce, lawfullness will devolve into anarchy." (I think that's from The Federalist Papers, but not sure)

In any case, it's common sense, and it's why lawyers are richer than us.

[TuNnL]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii

Actually, that works both ways....

Local laws can be more strict than federal law, in some cases. Just look at firearms restrictions and registration requirements.

Good point, Kaonohi. One that Frankie’s Market and Amati conveniently ignored in order to bolster their own position. And my point about Ed Kubo, btw Frankie, was not whether or not he was doing his job properly, but that as federal prosecutors go, he is far less sympathetic to states rights then others. You may or may not realize that in many scenarios, U.S. attorneys try to be cooperative with local authorities in order to achieve the same goals. I would say Kubo doesn’t exactly put himself in the best position to do that.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii

Good point, Kaonohi. One that Frankie’s Market and Amati conveniently ignored in order to bolster their own position.

Nope. Kaonohi simply offered up a red herring that sidesteps the issue of the relationship between federal law enforcement and state/local authorities. In your over-eagerness to declare me "wrong," you've fallen for it. Hook-line-sinker.

"So what" if a particular state enacts, say, a stricter law than federal standards call for? The state's laws would only apply to those who fall under the state's jurisdiction.

For example, the state of California can pass whatever stringent regulations they want on, say, emissions that are discharged into the air. But federally-owned and administered facilities would be exempt from California's standards. So in that case, federal law still trumps state law. That is what Amati and I were talking about. But apparently, that one *W-H-O-O-S-H-E-D* over your head.

Another example: For the last 30 years, the state of Hawaii has had the Frank Fasi inspired "resign-to-run" law, which compells elected officeholders at the county and state level to resign from their present position at a certain date in order to run for another county/state office. HOWEVER, this state law does not apply to politicians seeking election to a federal office, such as President or Congress.

This is why, for example, Frank Fasi had to resign from the Honolulu Mayor's office mid-term to run for governor in 1994. But Colleen Hanabusa didn't have to resign from her state senate seat mid-term to run for US Congress in 2006. Once again, this is another instance of federal law/standards not trumping a stricter state law.

And my point about Ed Kubo, btw Frankie, was not whether or not he was doing his job properly, but that as federal prosecutors go, he is far less sympathetic to states rights then others.

You wouldn't be the first one to have had a disagreement with how the Justice Department carries out its work.

You may or may not realize that in many scenarios, U.S. attorneys try to be cooperative with local authorities in order to achieve the same goals. I would say Kubo doesn’t exactly put himself in the best position to do that.

I never once said that there shouldn't be any form of cooperation between federal and local law enforcement whenever the situation calls for it.

Gee, if it's not Kaonohi throwing out the red herrings, it's you setting up strawmans. This is gettin' old.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii

Excellent, Bobby! Although my s.c. red herring was not deliberate, and was an honest attempt to understand the conflagration (yep, noun deliberate) between Fed and State, it is REALLY good to have one here who not only understands 'trickle-down' effects of multi-level laws, but who can explain them to us plebians, as well. I hope you stick around.

I'm a Libertarian because the 'common man (and woman, though at times to a lesser degree)' NEEDS simplicity in legislative imperatives.

Oh, yeah, it's already too late, and lawyers are essential cornerstones of society, but I don't think that's what Prez Obama meant when he talked about reviving the economy.

Ultimately, WE need to know the laws, how they affect us, how far we can go and where to stop - BEFORE we have to hire a lawyer. If we can't do that, then our society is doomed: It will once again turn into a divided society of the knowledgable and the exploited, and a cursory examination of world history will tell you what revolutionary actions that will engender.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, are NOT our only rights, but they are among the most important. I hope you all know them by heart.

Libertarianism comes from the root word, Liberty. Liberty is freedom. Freedom is a double-edged sword, for as you exercise your freedom, so must you also allow it to others. No, not allow, but assure! For so long as any one of us is not free, then we are all enslaved. In protecting OUR freedom, so must we also ensure the freedom of all our brothers and sisters.

Freedom? The right to express our hopes, desires, wishes and goals... so long as that expression thereof does not impair the right of others to do the same.

Nobody promised that the road would be easy... or smooth. Only that the road would BE there. And it is for us to step out and begin the trek, the trek to freedom, that our forefathers, and strangers, and great thinkers thought to prepare for us.

Be grateful. Take that step.

We get to define our own freedom via our method of government. If it is not enough, demand more! If it is too much, request restraint. But, whatever you do, do it with knowledge, with research and education, and not with emotion (which will betray you in the end).

Don't be too quick to sign off your rights for others to manage for you (Adolf Hitler took control of his nation's freedoms in 1933, 'for their own good,' and they became slaves). Freedom is NOT free.

In the 1700's America fought to secure freedom from England. This, and many later conflicts cost much in the way of lives, families and property. Do not let these sacrifices be in vain, or it will be your children who will die and suffer to restore them because you were too weak to hold them.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii

OK, Bob. We'll be patient....
(drumming fingers)

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii

You know, Kaonohi,.... I don't disagree with any of the fundamental views that Libertarians hold. I strongly think that many of the Founding Fathers of this country (those who had a hand in the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) would have been shaking their heads at how powerful the federal govt. has gotten, at the expense of the rights of not only the states, but of individual citizens as well.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world where everybody respects the rights and freedoms of others. Hence, the need for a nationalized system of defense and homeland security. Also, the need for federal law enforcement to keep an eye on corrupt officials working on the local and state levels.

But yeah, you don't have to convince me that there are plenty of laws and regulations out there that are more of a burden than a benefit to John Q. Public.

[scrivener]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii

Hence, the need for a nationalized system of defense and homeland security. Also, the need for federal law enforcement to keep an eye on corrupt officials working on the local and state levels.

Provision of the national defense is one of the function of federal government that the Libertarian Party believes in.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii

You know, Kaonohi,.... I don't disagree with any of the fundamental views that Libertarians hold. (...)
Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world where everybody respects the rights and freedoms of others. Hence, the need for a nationalized system of defense and homeland security. Also, the need for federal law enforcement to keep an eye on corrupt officials working on the local and state levels.

Thanks for not taking offense to my good-natured ribbing last night.

Despite the fact that there is an official Libertarian party, I think the aims and ideals of individual Libertarians are all over the board. Frankly, I don't even know the official 'party line.'

From what I have gathered by talking with others of my kind (and of my mind), we do NOT want to eliminate the Federal Govt., dismantle National defense, etc. Mostly we want to increase personal liberty. One important step would include decriminalizing "victimless crimes." A large percentage of our laws are throwbacks to a time when fervent religious leaders believed they knew what was best for everyone else. It's medieval in nature.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the perspectives on Libertarianism such as some of those you alluded to above are no more than 'scare tactics' promulgated by the two major parties in an attempt to keep America imprisoned in a solid "two-party system." You know? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...."

Cruising over to their 'official platform' at http://www.lp.org/platform I find I agree with most of the party's views, and found nothing opposing "a nationalized system of defense and homeland security. Also, the need for federal law enforcement to keep an eye on corrupt officials working on the local and state levels." In fact, they vigorously promote both!

They may not be perfect, but they do look a lot better than what I've seen in the USA since I first became politically aware ca. 1962 or so.

Well, I talk too much... so I'll leave it there for now.

[salmoned]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii, and elsewhere....

My pleasure.

http://archives.starbulletin.com/200...kokualine.html is a good place to get the overview.

The law itself is Section 291C-41(b) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which addresses the topic of driving on the right side: "Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway."

In other words, as the sign says, "Slower traffic keep right."

It says NOTHING about speed limits: if you are driving slower than I in the left lane, you are obligated, BY LAW, to move into the right lane.

I don't make the laws, I just follow them.

GTF OUT of my way! If I'm speeding, report me.

(FWIW): I don't come here daily - I have another, parallel, life to live. For those who have been waiting for responses: Thank you for your patience and consideration.

Oh and for the actual wording:
Specifically, Section 15-7.4 (c) states: "Whenever any roadway is clearly marked for two or more lanes of traffic moving in the same direction, no person driving a motor vehicle in the lane or lanes other than the extreme right lane shall travel at a speed which is five miles per hour or more below the maximum stated speed, e.g., below 30 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit zone or below 40 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour speed limit zone, except when otherwise directed by a police officer or any other persons authorized to direct, control or regulate traffic, or when a reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, or in compliance with the law."

When's the last time you got a ticket for driving too slow in the left lane?
This is known as "Selective enforcement." Selective enforcement is a path to anarchy, via the "enforcers" only prosecuting laws favorable to their personal (or collective) agendas.

I'll be back!

Your interpretation of this law is either 'tongue-in-cheek' or just plain wrong. The normal speed of traffic does not extend to the fastest driver on the road. By definition that driver is NOT driving at the normal speed of traffic and no one need 'move over' for speeders because they are, by definition, not proceeding at the normal speed of traffic. Anyone moving at or above the normal speed of traffic can disregard this law, as it simply doesn't apply. It may be rather difficult for officers to prove the normal speed of traffic in a court of law - that may explain the lack of enforcement. As well, "...when a reduced speed is necessary for safe operation..." must respect the opinion of the operator, not only the enforcement officer.

[TuNnL]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii, and elsewhere....

The normal speed of traffic does not extend to the fastest driver on the road. By definition that driver is NOT driving at the normal speed of traffic and no one need 'move over' for speeders because they are, by definition, not proceeding at the normal speed of traffic.

So let me get this straight. In the world of salmoned, the normal speed of traffic is defined as the speed limit or up to five miles below it? I would define the normal speed of traffic as the speed the majority of cars are traveling at (which outside of rush hour, is usually above the speed limit). If that’s not the case, what is the purpose of Section 291C-41(b) of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes?

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii

Cruising over to their 'official platform' at http://www.lp.org/platform I find I agree with most of the party's views, and found nothing opposing "a nationalized system of defense and homeland security. Also, the need for federal law enforcement to keep an eye on corrupt officials working on the local and state levels." In fact, they vigorously promote both!

Well now, I never claimed that anything I wrote represented the official platform of the Libertarian Party. All I was trying to do was to make a simple, straightforward point about how there needs to be some sort of balance between govt. bureaucracy and personal freedom.

Heck, the only political party I am a member of is the Loyal Order of Frankie's Market.

If some ideas in my head goes beyond even what the Libertarian Party supports, then maybe I'm an anarchist in certain respects!

They may not be perfect, but they do look a lot better than what I've seen in the USA since I first became politically aware ca. 1962 or so.

Great! Now you know that no single person or party has a monopoly on all the answers.

And knowing is half the battle.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii, and elsewhere....

Your interpretation of this law is either 'tongue-in-cheek' or just plain wrong. The normal speed of traffic does not extend to the fastest driver on the road. By definition that driver is NOT driving at the normal speed of traffic and no one need 'move over' for speeders because they are, by definition, not proceeding at the normal speed of traffic. Anyone moving at or above the normal speed of traffic can disregard this law, as it simply doesn't apply. It may be rather difficult for officers to prove the normal speed of traffic in a court of law - that may explain the lack of enforcement. As well, "...when a reduced speed is necessary for safe operation..." must respect the opinion of the operator, not only the enforcement officer.

That's why lawyers are some of the wealthiest of our contemporaries. Even the written expressions of the law seem not to agree! I just said 'em as I read 'em! Didn't I? That's 2 different, interrelated statutes.... One addresses minimum speed for the left lane, the other addresses yielding right of way to faster vehicles.
Most times I am quite irreverent (tongue-in-cheek); when I find something deserving of appropriate respect, I'll try to comply. BTW: still looking.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii

Well now, I never claimed that anything I wrote represented the official platform of the Libertarian Party. All I was trying to do was to make a simple, straightforward point about how there needs to be some sort of balance between govt. bureaucracy and personal freedom.

And now you know the Lib Party addresses that! And I agree with you AND the Libertarians... wow!

Great! Now you know that no single person or party has a monopoly on all the answers.

And knowing is half the battle.

That's not news. Did I ever give the impression I believed otherwise? Or is this one of those 'rhetorical statements' meant to inform everyone of something we already knew? For ego points maybe?

Of course. Knowing. Maybe I get your point: 'No knowing, no battle. No battle, no victory. Knowing is half the battle, so we best get busy with the other half....'

Anarchist? You're a REVOLUTIONARY!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Libertarianism in Hawaii, and elsewhere....

So let me get this straight. In the world of salmoned, the normal speed of traffic is defined as the speed limit or up to five miles below it? I would define the normal speed of traffic as the speed the majority of cars are traveling at (which outside of rush hour, is usually above the speed limit). If that’s not the case, what is the purpose of Section 291C-41(b) of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes?

Once again, these are two separate, but interrelated statutes.
The latter says don't drive slower than "X." The former says don't drive slower than the traffic behind you if you are in the left lane.
Put 'em all together and shake 'em all around; that's what it's all about!

A good reason to convert to Libertarianism - they seek to simplify statutes!

Happy Ground Hog Day!