Contingency Crime

December 6th, 2013   Submitted by Davi Barker

FuckingLegal

When I was in high school the faculty was trying to push through a mandatory school uniform at the same time they were inventing rules against wearing gang colors, which they defined as three or more students wearing the same color in the same place. Ignoring for the moment that imposing a school uniform mandated that large groups of students wear the same color, making the school itself the biggest gang on campus, resisting my school’s gang colors doctrine has made me keenly sensitive to something I’ve come to call “contingency crime,” which is when one permitted action becomes prohibited, contingent upon another permitted action.

Human beings come up with all sorts of modifiers for terms to indicate that they don’t really fit the standard definition. “Statutory rape” is “statutory” because it isn’t actually rape. It doesn’t involve violating a person’s body without their consent. It involves violating a statute, meaning words on paper which set an arbitrary age of consent. A “victimless crime” is “victimless” because it isn’t actually a crime. Not a natural crime. It doesn’t involve a violation of anyone’s rights. It involves violating a statute, arbitrary words on paper. Similarly, a “contingency crime” is not actually a crime. It is an arbitrary prohibition devised by law makers in their never ending quest to mold everyone’s private lives to their preferences.

Here’s what I mean. A person has a right to wear an orange hoodie. A person also has a right to stand in a public park (baring technicalities about publicly accessible, privately owned parks). These are both perfectly peaceful, voluntary, and rights respecting actions. But, in their zeal to crack down on gangs (other than the school spirit gang), the faculty at my school prohibited three people from exercising these rights simultaneously. This is a logically untenable prohibition. Suppose a man is sitting on a bench in the park, wearing an orange hoodie, and feeding pigeons. No crime. He is perfectly within his right to wear an orange hoodie in that park. Then suppose two women go for a walk in the park, wearing orange hoodies. Still no crime. They are still perfectly within their right, because they are below the arbitrary statutory limit of 3. But now we have an approaching contingency. If the two women happen to stroll by the man feeding pigeons, despite everyone only being engaged in peaceful, voluntary, rights respecting actions, at some proximity they become perpetrators of a statutory crime. The man has a right to be there. The two women have a right to be there. But somehow the three of them collectively do not have a right to be there. This conundrum means there is no way to objectively identify a contingency crime. Law enforcers must know one when they see one.

Almost any time assembly is criminalized it’s a contingency crime, and you’ll find this all over the adult world. During the Occupy Movement, San Francisco Police told occupants of Justin Herman Plaza that the encampment was limited to 100 tents. The problem was every tent was occupied by an autonomous individual who had no authority to enforce this limit on neighboring occupants. I was not 100 people in 100 tents. I was 1 person in 1 tent, and so was everyone else. Even though the General Assembly decided to comply with this order, the collective didn’t have the power to evict anyone. So, either law enforcement was saddled with the impossible task of identifying which 100 tents were compliant and which were in violation, or they needed to claim that if one tent more than 100 was constructed suddenly no one was free to occupy the plaza. That means that a “crime” committed by everyone was contingent upon one autonomous individual outside their control.

When commerce is criminalized it’s usually a contingency crime. A designated driver can give a drunk a ride home and it’s no crime. A person can give money to another person as a gift and it’s no crime. But make these two perfectly peaceful, voluntary, and rights respecting actions contingent upon one another and suddenly it’s an unlicensed taxi service and you’re a criminal.

Crimes of quantity are also always contingency crimes. Not to get too technical, but addition is commutative. If it’s permissible to carry a envelope of $5,000 across a US border without filling out any paperwork, it makes no sense for two envelopes of $5,000 to require a customs declaration. If it’s permissible to carry some quantity of a substance for personal use, it makes no sense criminalize larger quantities because it’s construed as intent to sell. These are also contingency crimes, and do not stand up to any kind of philosophical rigor.

Learn to spot contingency crimes and you’ll see them everywhere. Understand them and they become easy to argue against. If all the component steps are perfectly peaceful, voluntary, and rights respecting, how can anyone rationally advocate criminalizing the resultant action?

 

 

 

There is a sense in which almost every crime is a contingency crime.

12 Responses to “Contingency Crime”

  1. absoluterightsNo Gravatar says:

    nice

  2. PoppyNo Gravatar says:

    I noticed “natural crime” mentioned in the same statement with the term “statutory”. Does “natural law” protect us from “statutory law, or crime” when a “victimless crime” is created? I say yes, only if there is no ignorance of the “law”. The “law” is our Constitution or “natural law”, but “statutory law” or “legalized illegalities” comes from our “corporate charter”. This “charter” is identical to what our Constitution looks like, runs like and has replicated “the system” it has since morphed into. Understand the difference between the two and you’ll understand how they get away with this absurdity of infringing upon us any law they want to invent! We only have access to our organic Constitution if we’re not ignorant to these facts of what has happened to our laws.

    • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      I’m assuming you’re talking about about the US Constitution, which is a corporate charter as far as I can tell. Is there some other constitution (an organic one, for example) that you’re referring to?

      • PoppyNo Gravatar says:

        I say organic so as to represent a distinct difference of one from the other, ie the “charter” vs “the US Constitution”. The charter represents this corporations rulings based on what we believe it to be as our Constitutional rulings, they are not lawful but are legal. As an entity operating under this charter(it’s only a copy)anything can be legalized, like these ridiculous invasions upon any rights, referred to as infringements and basically like those represented in this meme. Anything can be legalized when our elected officials are actually operating as CEO’s for this corp. rather than adhering to the organic constitution in all our best interests. The Constitution is accessible to non US citizens and ex US citizens, but US citizens are subject to the charters rule; which happens to be corporate municipal statutory code. Your correct sir, there is only on US Constitution and we aren’t entitled to it’s protection; only the charters rules as they continue to legalize crimes against us all.

        • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

          I’m feeling pretty confused by the first person plural pronouns. Who is the “we” and “our” that you’re talking about? Do you work for the US government?

          I looked up “constitution” in the dictionary and it said “charter” was a synonym. The only US Constitution that I’m aware of, the one that begins “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union (read: corporation)” is the rulings by which the the Union supposedly operates (but doesn’t). Is there another US Constitution? If it’s accessible, can I read it?

          I’m utterly confused.

          • PoppyNo Gravatar says:

            Do I work for any government . . HELL NO!!! “We and our” is us, or we the people, and “they” are this government and the entity corp. known as the federal reserve bank or the crown. They uphold the charter and the charter is not our Constitution, they copied our Constitution as their(they)charter and since have represented it as our Constitution. They even replicated our system, and since have methodically done what they’ve done to so many other nations, to ours. It’s harder to believe or want to believe than it is to understand, it’s generational so it doesn’t seem that it’s possible to have been done, but it has. Hidden history reveals how it was achieved and why, this is the real reason the civil war started, everything to do with slavery but not the type we’ve been lead to believe. It wasn’t about freeing blacks from slavery but to keep us all from being indebted servants to the crown to repay the national debt. borrowed from them after the revolution. The debt was minute compared to now, too. Well, “we all” lost that war and don’t even understand that we did, you’ll have to recognize what this is through your own research because it really doesn’t matter what I say, does it. It is really the only way I for any of to understand, on our own. Like so many that wonder how our rights can continually be trampled led to my researching how they can do these things so easily with total disregard to what we believe to be criminal activity with each action they make. We have been conned and all the executive branch knows this. Hell, anyone that simply cares to prove or try to disprove this info can, if they look into it.
            I’ll break it down as simply as I can. We had colonial debt based on 13 states. When the debt was called based on the 70 year notes it was renegotiated by Lincoln, he knew what the problem was and this is when our Constitution was suspended, has been since, through executive order #1. At that moment we became a military dictatorship and this is the status of our “organic” US Constitution to this minute. This document is no charter. The document showing itself as the charter is an exact copy of our organic version, complete with our replicated system with actor CEO’s; this is how the corporation can freely ignore so much we believe we are to be protected from. That all capitol version of the copied Constitution is proven to be a fraud buy our supreme court in 1938, look up the case law and see for yourself. I said it already, the charter is not what we believe it to be. US citizens have no right to the original, or only Constitution, just the corporate version. Now if we give up our citizenship we have our rights to it again, we become sovereign individuals like we’re all supposed to be. This info plays a major role as to why they want our guns and want infringements on our ammo and such. They know we’re waking up to their global scam. Look for yourself, it’s the only way anyone understands anything, after that we can share things we each missed or misunderstood. This is real bro. understand this and you’ll understand the how’s and whys they do what they do, unlawfully on a regular and casual basis. Our ignorance of the law takes on a whole new meaning, this is why those traitor judges make us aware of this fact . . ignorance of the law is no excuse!!!
            Anyone can read the Constitution, even the charter because it’s identical but for it’s title and it’s last amendment, or the crowns hook in it. one thing the original will never have though is corporate municipal statutory code, with these we have no rights. The Constitution we believe in isn’t able to defend or stand for itself, we do that and this is why the CEO’s want us disarmed.

  3. Mike HaggardNo Gravatar says:

    Crime that is only a crime contingent upon cumulative non-related circumstances and recognizable by separating its discrete components and considering them individually…very original analysis.

    I’m curious to know what prompted your thinking down this path?

    • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      The gang colors ban in high school. I was being sincere. That is when I first started analyzing law this way, and in my mind I often refer back to that fight when I come across one of these.

      • Mike HaggardNo Gravatar says:

        By “prompted,” I was just thinking that high school was not so recent an event? Perhaps I’ve grown so old at this point, that I’ve forgotten how “recent” it feels to be 10 or 15 years out of high school. 🙂

  4. toaNo Gravatar says:

    There are a lot of silly contingency laws. In missouri, I haven’t verified, I was told it is illegal to sell used tires… Of course I wouldn’t recommend breaking such important laws, but I wonder if it is “illegal” to trade tires. 1 used tire for another, or a used tire for a carton of cigarettes. Probably not, so I’d recommend, not selling used tires, but it seems safe to trade a used tire for some used cash.

    • Single acts of tyrannyNo Gravatar says:

      so if I want an old tire for a deadlift flip exercise, it is illegal to sell me one ?