This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind. Here's his
Mastodon, his
Twitter, and his
Instagram, as well.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
The front page still says that the last page is Sacrifice Part A, while the last is currently Part D.
Harrumph. I’d better go fix that. Thanks!
I understand not liking freeloaders, but there’s a difference between someone who is a drain because they take out more than they put in for some reason, and someone who hoards all the resources they can at the expense of the community. I think as a society we’re hung up on “people who take out = bad,” when people really ought to have realized that “people who don’t put in” are a far larger problem in modern times.
I’d suggest it’s not really a problem if people take out more than they put in, when they’re at least sharing some of the load given their circumstances (or are incapable of doing so). The problem is when people “put one over” on society, enjoying the benefits while evading the responsibilities. And that’s not only a modern problem—it’s something governments have had to deal with since governments began. Makes one wonder how (or whether) U.S. Constitutional Law deals with it, and what its historical context might have been, no?
The reply function is getting difficult (it shows a gray box). If this doesn’t reply correctly, I’m replying to Nathan.
Anyway, I’m watching this topic with interest, because I’ve personally observed the rents I’ve received from the privileges granted by our institutions. I’m sure that such institutional flaws *have nothing to do with our constitutional system*, of course.
Also, a belated welcome back!