Juries: Yes or No?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is government's answerability to those twelve soccer moms that keeps it wearing a smiley face.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. I found myself agreeing with you for once until you said this.
Exactly how is the government "answerable" to the jury?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way any potential criminal would be.

[BCPVP]

Nielso, it's these types of responses that are the reason people don't take you seriously. You know damn well what he's asking and an answer doesn't need to have anything to do with the current system. Stop being a bitch about this and answer the question.

[iron81]

I dunno, I think I get where Nieliso is coming from. If I thought I was living in a tyrrany and the whole of society was designed to oppress me, I'd think the question was a little nitty.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is government's answerability to those twelve soccer moms that keeps it wearing a smiley face.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. I found myself agreeing with you for once until you said this.
Exactly how is the government "answerable" to the jury?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way any potential criminal would be.

[/ QUOTE ]
HUH?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, I think I get where Nieliso is coming from. If I thought I was living in a tyrrany and the whole of society was designed to oppress me, I'd think the question was a little nitty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Practically any question would be nitty with that logic. What subjects do we talk about here that don't involve substantial government interference on some level? What isn't related to the government in some way? And why does that prevent someone from engaging in a hypothetical?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're telling me the jury system is constantly checking stupid laws? Despite that system, we manage to get plenty of them. In practice, the juries are dumb-factfinders who want to get the hell out of there asap. They aren't sitting in armchairs with pipes and speaking in British accents about the moral implications of their verdicts. And next, are you telling me that despite that juries don't exercise this restraint, government would suddenly turn more tyrannial, judges would cast away their oaths, and evil legislators everywhere would rejoice that they can finally pass laws those damned juries won't validate?

[/ QUOTE ]

The presence of the jury system greatly reduces the prospects of tyranny through law to begin with, so it never gets that far. The jurors are there to express the moral conscience of the source of all civil authority: the people. This role is entirely in keeping with not needing special qualification from their servant government which they are there to oversee.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't express that moral conscience. They rubber stamp terrible laws. And the lack of a special qualification, IMO, is at odds with actually providing justice. Where the guilty are guility and the innocent are innocent.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
What subjects do we talk about here that don't involve substantial government interference on some level?

[/ QUOTE ]
So, you see why Nieliso is consistent? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, I think I get where Nieliso is coming from. If I thought I was living in a tyrrany and the whole of society was designed to oppress me, I'd think the question was a little nitty.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a little nitty too, but I don't think N thinks that. Government != society; in fact I'm quite sure N would argue that GOVERNMENT is designed to oppress SOCIETY.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielso, it's these types of responses that are the reason people don't take you seriously. You know damn well what he's asking and an answer doesn't need to have anything to do with the current system. Stop being a bitch about this and answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]


BCPVP,

You as an ACist should understand why I am not in the business of answering questions (and spending time on things) that are designed to obscure institutionalized violence and further the illusion of choice.

Second of all I suggest that you look at your personal life and the voluntarism principles that you hold, because the attitude I'm observing in your posts in this thread are NOT consistent with them. I do not botch to insults, threads or communication that is designed to create an atmosphere of dominance and subserviance between people.

"stop being a bitch" and "you know damn well" are part of such an attitude and I will have nothing of it. In my case, there will be consequences if you continue like this and it will be ignores-ville and bye-bye. And this is probably unlike the people in your own life and also yourself with regards to people who do the same to you.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You as an ACist should understand why I am not in the business of answering questions (and spending time on things) that are designed to obscure institutionalized violence and further the illusion of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
No one has asked you anything about the state, they want to know what types of models you think private arbitration in an AC world would look like. Would they be similar to those today? Radically different somehow?

My problem with your posts is that they don't further dialogue any. You're not going to change any minds by simply repeating "institutionalized violent monopoly theft!!!" ad nauseam. It's ok to give your opinion on how you think things might work. If you don't know or don't have an opinion, then you don't need to say anything.

So do you have any thoughts on what arbitration might look like in a free society?