Your Twenties are about to become "Tubbies"

[Scooter]

Well somebody must have thought there was a need for 10k notes one time

Because once upon a time even financial institutions had to settle some large transactions among themselves with currency, when there was no other way to do it. Today electronic banking has obliterated the need for currency in all but the smallest of transactions. If someone is transacting $100,000 deals in cash, it is only because the deal itself has an illegal purpose, or they are trying to evade taxes. I don't need to support the war on drugs to believe that it should not be easy for drug cartels to do business, or for the mafia to run an underground economy that evades taxation.

[RayThom]

As mentioned on CBS this morning the $100,000 bank note was only used within the banking industry. It was never available to the "general" public.

[Lord Jim]

I remember when I was a kid back in the late 60's, Monty Hall sometimes used $500 and $1000 bills for cash prizes on Let's Make A Deal....

[Scooter]

And if you think about it, $1000 then would probably be close to $10,000 today.

[kmccune]

When gold was 35$ an ounce I imagine it was easier to take a note ,then a bag .Is that 100K note legitimate ?I thought the 10 k was the largest .
Good Scooter ,I am glad you are not part of the misguided effort to save people from themselves ,after my Daughter started to get a few years on Her ,and I acquired more cats ,"tough love " went out the window .I see the folly in my ways now .You cannot legislate or enforce morality effectively .

[MajGenl.Meade]

You cannot legislate or enforce morality effectively

While concurring with Scooter's point about the 'war on drugs', it seems to me that all laws sanctioning behavior are attempts to enforce morality. It is regarded by society as "wrong" to steal, maim, kill, kidnap, park in a handicap spot and so on. The fact that laws change merely reflects societal tendencies to shift common understandings of what is and is not 'moral'.

It is undeniable that laws are made but often disobeyed - but that is not a reason to reject the rule of law itself. It may be the basis for reviewing particular laws and how they are enforced.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Withdrawing or depositing $10K or more in cash, will get you added attention.

[Long Run]

Withdrawing or depositing $10K or more in cash, will get you added attention.

Indeed, evading this law is the crime that Hastert is being charged with (withdrawing funds to try to hush his sexual abuse victims).

[Big RR]

You cannot legislate or enforce morality effectively

While concurring with Scooter's point about the 'war on drugs', it seems to me that all laws sanctioning behavior are attempts to enforce morality. It is regarded by society as "wrong" to steal, maim, kill, kidnap, park in a handicap spot and so on. The fact that laws change merely reflects societal tendencies to shift common understandings of what is and is not 'moral'.

It is undeniable that laws are made but often disobeyed - but that is not a reason to reject the rule of law itself. It may be the basis for reviewing particular laws and how they are enforced.

I disagree Meade--some laws are made to force compliance with a moral code, but the vast majority of laws are enacted to protect people from being preyed upon by another. Hence, murder, robbery, kidnapping have pretty much remained illegal, while consumption of alcohol or shopping on Sunday is legal in the vast majority of jurisdictions.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I disagree Big RR - murder, robbery and kidnapping are against an agreed moral code. Moral code = X is wrong. ["Pretty much remained illegal" - is there a jurisdiction where these are not still illegal?)

I was careful to point out that laws reflect changes in what is understood to be moral and not moral - this accounts for the changes in laws regarding shopping on Sunday. I'm not sure I know where consumption of alcohol is forbidden, outside of Islamic countries. I would have thought one can suck down a beer in one's own home anywhere in the USA?

Is there a penal criminal law you can think of that is not based on the notion that to do X is wrong? Come to that, failure to halt at a Stop sign is still a moral issue (because the law says it's illegal - because it increases the risk of personal and property damage through traffic accident).

[Big RR]

Well Meade--I guess if you define morality that broadly, then all laws do have a moral component. But personally, I think laws are enacted to created a society where people are protected from those who would do them harm, and criminal laws are enacted to remove those who do such harm from society and/or rehabilitate them. Now if protection of others is included in morality, then I cannot argue with you.

My point about laws based on morality is that some laws do not have that protection component; laws that seek to protect a mentally able person from his or herself are laws of that type, be they prohibition of alcohol or criminalizing of the use of drugs. There are many such laws, but they are based solely on the premise that the behavior is somehow wrong and should be proscribed because it is wrong.

As for alcohol consumption, my typing got ahead of me--I do think that many jurisdictions ban the sale or serving of alcohol in commercial establishments, nbut I do not think consumption is banned anywhere by law. Thanks for pointing that out.

[MajGenl.Meade]

My point about laws based on morality is that some laws do not have that protection component; laws that seek to protect a mentally able person from his or herself are laws of that type, be they prohibition of alcohol or criminalizing of the use of drugs. There are many such laws, but they are based solely on the premise that the behavior is somehow wrong and should be proscribed because it is wrong.

I maintain that all laws are based on the premise that certain behavior is wrong and should be proscribed because it is wrong. From time to time, society adjusts its notions of what is wrong and the laws change accordingly.

I agree. We agree. I'm a Pepper, you're a Pepper. Hum hum dee da da

I was listening today to old episodes of The Infinite Monkey Cage (BBC Radio 4) - well worth the downloads back to the beginning (better than that Archers crap). In one, Brian Cox and others were discussing the viability of scientific approaches to law (and education etc). In the case of drugs, courts should divide cases arbitrarily with half those convicted getting the normal legal punishment and the other half getting intervention, treatment, job-training, whatever. Then after many years of this, one could compare data and see which approach was the best. It was felt that judges wouldn't go for it.... and when it came to education, the problem is likely to be parents. They'd not appreciate that their child was in one or the other of two (say) educational approaches - one traditional and the other non - even though the general data gathered from the experiment would likely come 15 years later.

[rubato]

You keep making this same mistake. The state is not entitled to legislate morality only to protect the rights of persons.



Cannot discuss further wo a keyboard (2 wk)

Yrs,
Rubato

[kmccune]

In a town near here you cannot sit on your front porch and drink a beer .
The judges are a law unto themselves ,depending on their prejudices ,as are juries . Too many dang laws ,period ,for example looking at a woman for more then 3 seconds ,costitutes sexual harrasment and things like that .Weenie laws are weenie laws ,in VA there is still a law on the books that a property owner has to provide half the fencing if a neighbor decided to have livestock and how come tax ass-essors can legally tresspass(while valuing your property above market value) beyond basic moral code a lot of laws are BS ,because they ensure people dont have to get along ,the La ,can handle it .Our little semi retirement almost gated poverty stricken county has 17 deputies and 4 state troopers, why ? (cant have but so many funerals a day ) while the fire dept and rescue squads are basically staffed(stuff people really need ) by volunteers ,should we try to keep our prisons full or our people safe ,the La seems to be pretty lax on the people safety dept ,they do have some stunning successes seizing MJ plants around here ,but then can find a murderer who kills two people and walks out of a crowded building.
The law is necessary ,but not to the extent of a police state .
I can hear the rebuttal now ,feel free to explain why we need more onerous laws .

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm guessing you just might have certain issues of law.

No one (AFAIK) in this thread has even remotely suggested that "we need more onerous laws". That's just b.s. as I suspect is the case with other parts of your post. It reads like the "Sound Off" column in our local rag which I read out loud to my wife for laughs - "How come the city doesn't care about anything? Who are they anyway?" Haikus of doom.

Looking at a woman for more than 3 seconds is sexual harassment.
The town that bans drinking a beer on your porch
- please quote the relevant laws and cite the sources so we can read them.

That's true about Virginia fences, to the extent that counties may be fence-in (a property line is a "fence" and therefore livestock owners are liable for any damage caused by their animals) or fence-out (property line is not a fence and if animals wander onto your own property then you can't get damages from the animal owner). Roughly speaking. The idea of fence-out seems to be that if you want to make sure your property is not damaged, then you must take steps to safeguard it and costs can be divided 50/50.

Very much agree that a "police state" is not desirable but once again no one here has suggested anything different.

[kmccune]

I am so happy you would love to live in a cage ,go and volunteer to be in a dorm in General population for a month .
One of our hard nosed at times retired Judges died in a horrible vehicle crash ,very trustful rumor has it He was drunk ,yet He had hammered many DUI s ,if it had not been for "professional courtesy "He would probably be with us today ,His picture hangs in the courthouse ,along with a dubious Sheriff and an virtuous embezzler (who I was told stole my granddads money )(afterwards someone alluded that granddad went into a slide )
" The law should apply to all or not at all " Were you in law "enforcement "?

[Lord Jim]

I am so happy you would love to live in a cage ,

Gee, I just re-read Meade's post, and I must be developing some reading comprehension issues, because I'm just not seeing where he says that...

The law is necessary ,but not to the extent of a police state .
I can hear the rebuttal now ,

Okay, who would like to stand up and take the affirmative position on the debate topic, "Resolved; We Should Have A Police State"...

Anybody?

I'm not going to pass judgement on your specific situation because I'm not there and don't know the details, but I do know that there are a lot of people who are ready to yell "police state" over even the most modest governmental actions. (Like gathering meta-phone data for example)

I invite those folks to go and spend some time in a real, sure as shootin' police state, so that they might gain a proper appreciation for the difference...

[Big RR]

Jim--are you seriously saying that just because there are more onerous totalitarian police states, no one should raise that specter when you see less onerous incursions on civil rights and privacy? I understand you think the collection of phone metadata is no big deal, but isn't it better to discuss that issue and not say (like my father used to say) "If you don't like it, move to Russia [or whatever police state you want to use]". Rights are not lost all at once--they are lost slowly, and often with loudly cheering crowds; I don't see anything wrong with recognizing an incursion on rights for what it is.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I am so happy you would love to live in a cage ,go and volunteer to be in a dorm in General population for a month .

I have no idea what prompts that - any chance you can point to where I said I'd love to be in a prison? I shall add that to the expected very, very, very long wait for a citation of laws about looking at women for more than 3 seconds and drinking a beer on the front porch. But if you post such, I shall be interested in confirmation of your claim.

It is to be hoped that you noticed the confirmation of your point about fences and that I agree a police state is very undesirable? On the subject of fences, don't feel so hard done by in Virginia - Ohio Revised Code:

971.071 Allocation of fence costs between property owners.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, an owner of land as defined in division (D)(2) of section 971.01 of the Revised Code is responsible for fifty per cent of the total cost of building and maintaining in good repair a partition fence between that owner and the owner of adjoining property unless a written agreement has been entered into under section 971.04 of the Revised Code.
Effective Date: 2008 HB323 09-30-2008

One of our hard nosed at times retired Judges died in a horrible vehicle crash ,very trustful rumor has it He was drunk ,yet He had hammered many DUI s ,if it had not been for "professional courtesy "He would probably be with us today

A sad tale - we often fail ourselves in situations where we condemn others. Of course, it was his job to judge DUI cases and more power to those who do. We don't need drunks on the road. Pity he didn't get the benefit of prosecution.

His picture hangs in the courthouse ,along with a dubious Sheriff and an virtuous embezzler (who I was told stole my granddads money )(afterwards someone alluded that granddad went into a slide )

Rumors and allusions? I guess that's what embezzlers do - embezzle.

" The law should apply to all or not at all " Were you in law "enforcement "?

I disagree. The law should apply to all. Period. Just because one person gets away with a crime does not mean that everyone else should be allowed to do so. That is the rule of a thug state.

No - I have never been in law enforcement. Neither have I ever been charged with a crime (other than a handful of speeding tickets, lo these many years gone). Mind you, in the past there were too many instances when a charge of DUI would have been indefensible and I'm glad I never was caught. Not one of us is without sin - that's not self-defense but self-indictment.

Tsamaya hantle

[Scooter]

there are a lot of people who are ready to yell "police state" over even the most modest governmental actions

Yes, I can recall some people claiming that police sponsorship of children's sports teams was evidence of a police state in action.