Here in WA state, voters have decreed (and, interestingly enough, in opposition to the leadership of the political parties) that people may vote for whoever they want in the primary election and any candidate can designate whatever political party he wants as his label. Only the top two appear on the November ballot.

This means that, except in very rare cases, no official candidate of the Libertarian Party (or anyone else other than D & R) will appear on the November ballot, period. I don’t know how any non-D&R party can survive in WA state.

Of course, things change. If you like I will gladly contact Serpe to see, but then again, no reason you can’t do the same.

Familiarize yourself with this blog, or even read the whole article you are responding to, before saying something so stupid again.

If any of you think that this kind of politics will gather mainstream support you’re smoking really bad weed or you’re all a bunch of tweakers that can talk themselves into anything.

It not so much the “don’t play with guns ” that brothered me but when he said “I’m the only one here professional enough to carry this Glock.”

Hope they consider it for their Christmas/Birthday list the way the USA is heading to pot real fast with this economy.

As far as Rohrabacher:

My guess: There are strange psychological phenomena at work in Dana’s head. And bad alliances pushing him in a less libertarian direction than he would choose if he were more able to win re-election on his own (with no outside funding). I read in Doherty’s book that Rohrabacher traveled the country with a banjo singing radical anarchist tunes, and organizing YAF (Young Americans for Freedom) clubs (the precursor to today’s Libertarian Clubs) on many college campuses.

After getting elected, he was also a speechwriter for Reagan (how Reagan talked the talk), and a friend of Ollie North (one reason why he probably espouses foreign intervention). It’s easy to find his quotes at WIKI about eschewing the “more extreme” philosophy of his “youth”.

Sad that he (seemingly) didn’t continue to grow and mature as an anarcho-capitalist libertarian thinker.

He now favors “keeping the illegals out”. How he reconciles that with even slight voluntaryism, I have no idea. …Pure BS.

Still, he was on Bill Maher, and he stuck up for marijuana legalization, and seemed to want to be included in the radical “in crowd”. He called himself a surfer. He seemed to lay claim to being more libertarian than Bill Maher, but the irony is that he’s about as libertarian as Bill Maher now is, AFTER having been exposed to a hardcore libertarian philosophy (LeFevre, Watner). …For shame.

I think it’s too bad that most sane libertarians don’t want to run for office. That’s my assessment, of course, but it does seem to be either a major factor, or even a limit to the growth of the LP.

Some suggestions: 9/10 of running for office as a Libertarian is to simply not give the establishment an easy target:
1) Wear a suit every day
2) Speak in complete and proper English sentences
3) Put up a website that doesn’t indicate that you are delusional (my own 2004 website failed this “delusional” test, but I was only running as a paper candidate so that the CLP was not automatically removed from the ballot in 2004. I had to get 5% of the vote and I got 4% and we were removed. But I got that 4% while being out of state for my entire campaign. Even now, I would have been able to afford a better “ready-made” blog site.)
4) Don’t do anything that’s certifiably insane or obviously out-of-step with the people you expect to elect you (eat colloidal silver until you turn blue, run for president without being able to afford air-travel, tell people you’re going to run a “write-in” campaign, champion some aspect of socialism until the LP rightfully disowns you, etc…), and check out questionable actions with your rational and politically-aware campaign manager, or advisor if you are too cheap to have a campaign manager. (One such delusional action might be “taking a seat” for principle during the pledge of allegience. Such as what happened in Alaska’s 20th district in 2006.)

THEN, DO THE NECESSARY MINIMAL WORK:

5) Walk your entire district with an email signup sheet and your campaign materials. If neither you nor another libertarian that you COMPLETELY trust to do an EQUALLY good job can walk your district, then run for the next smaller office. You should have simple notes about what every household in your district believes.

There are a host of minor things that most libertarian campaigns DO NOT DO. Hence, they can not expect to win office, no matter how many years the LP has been in existence. (This is the problem, and NOT the “problems” that Konkin points to, such as “it’s impossible to make a change within the system”. Such comments mark one as a neophyte to political thinking.)

My point is simply that it is sad that Rohrabacher can remain elected as a state legislator, but consistent libertarians cannot. (The ones who could have, always got stars in their eyes and ran for higher offices they could not win.) I’d like to see Rohrabacher have more competition for consistency from the LP.

…Still, Rohrabacher’s at least more libertarian than most state legislators on most domestic issues. (Such as marijuana legalization, and gun rights. Given his weakness on immigration, who knows how he stands with respect to ending all drug prohibition?)

If I could, I’d suggest to Rohrabacher that he vote in line with the LP platform, but neither I nor anyone else libertarian apparently has much sway over Dana. So I wish him well when he’s voting libertarian, which is more of the time than most legislators.

I should point out that when Konkin rejected Rohrabacher’s friendship, he thereby eliminated any ability to influence Rohrabacher in the direction of voluntaryism. The same with anyone else who pursues a path of “relinquishment”. (The same applies to nanotechnologists for similar reasons.)

-Jake

The problem comes in if I’m actually innocent and your jury has found me “guilty” (maybe evidence is misinterpreted, a so-called eyewitness lies, a mistake in the chain of reasoning, etc).

In that case, I have a right to defend myself – with lethal force if necessary – if your marshals, pursuant to the erroneous jury’s verdict, come after me. What I *don’t* have is the obligation to martyr myself on a crucifix in the sake of an enlightened jury system.

From the Manifesto:

“In fact, the entire power to subpoena should be abolished, because the subpoena power compels attendance at a trial. Even the accused criminal or tortfeasor should not be forced to attend his own trial, since he has not yet been convicted. If he is indeed—according to the excellent and
Involuntary Servitude 87 libertarian principle of Anglo-Saxon law—innocent until proved guilty, then the courts have no right to compel the defendant to attend his trial.
For remember, the only exemption to the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude is “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”; an accused party has not yet been convicted. The most the court should be able to do, then, is to notify the defendant that he is going to be tried, and invite him or his lawyer to attend; otherwise, if they choose not to, the trial will proceed in absentia. Then, of course, the defendant will not enjoy the best presentation of his case.”

Yep. As I’ve said many times, government is just institutionalized law-flouting.

I favor a market-based delivery system of the commodity of justice, but it can’t, I repeat can’t, violate any innocent person’s rights in the process. A jury has the right to acquit an innocent person in absentia, but that’s about as far as I’ll go. Detaining an innocent person is in itself a rights violation, and Rothbard even spoke of pre-trial detention as unlibertarian, in the manifesto. Convicting an innocent person is patently unacceptable.

You should read my essay (well, draft, as it isn’t finished yet) and you’ll see it if you go here:

http://libertycrusader.wordpress.com/political-consulting/garys-writings/essay-sorting-it-all-out/

Nope, I disagree with that. I agree with Jefferson, who said that rights are endowed by our creator, and are self-evident, as well as inalienable.

I did not WANT or SEEK a “proper trial”, or any trial. I did not want to be accused AT ALL. And keep in mind many of my accusers are libertarians who ADVOCATE (read: would implement) the same kind of jury system you speak of (and of which I too see as the best of what’s available). So, in that system, nothing would change, as I would continue to be prosecuted – and persecuted – by the very people running the new, “enlightened” system.

I favor a better jury system, sure. But even more than that I’d value not being prosecuted at all, as an innocent person. I think I have a right not to be prosecuted at all.

You’re using the system I’m not referring to (the system without proper jury trial), to attack the system I’m referring to (the system with proper jury trial). It appears you don’t know how much you had to gain from a proper trial. …And did you ever have a proper trial? Nope. Actually, I’d expect you to seek a proper trial above all else, since being denied one has kept you broke and blacklisted (another facet of our system that doesn’t enjoy proper trials is the fact that the law is the domain of the rich, thanks to mandatory bar membership).

The Libertarian Party is full of people who don’t like the “hassle” of contracts, because they wish reserve the ability to do their hirees harm. If you had ever experienced the protection once afforded by the 6th and 7th amendments, your life would be immeasurably better. Hence the tendency of Libertarians –after great fault and endless harrassment of you– to admit you were right, and pay you, in order to prevent a jury trial. And, of course, the fact that lawyers are all bar members means that their primary strategy was always to simply try to bankrupt you, either by nonpayment, or by forcing you to pay legal fees.

As such, there was a huge disincentive towards you finding justice.

The way you refer to the concept of rights, the concept is not useful or practical, legally. Yet rights are solely a legal concept.

Raw nature (fight or flight, unreason, weather patterns, etc…) doesn’t recognize rights, only intellect does.

So by your definition of rights (as an abstraction that cannot ever guide the force of human action), we all only have one right: survival of the fittest.

…And I agree with that. Certainly, there is no law in the USA, right now. Yet we’ve rejected –as a nation– the idea of jury rights. We’ve allowed power-seeking judges and prosecutors to take away our right to jury trial (our right to demand equality under the law, and our right to interfere with power-motivated unlibertarian prosecutions).

By any other law, than random and unbiased jury trial, we have only “might makes right”.

No other system eliminates bias like proper juries, as I’ve previously defined.

I apologize for any heated attacks on your person as opposed to your position. I much more respect your beliefs than the beliefs of the prosecutorial mindset. I just believe that proper jury trials are the path of righteousness for the LP to walk. I see in detail how they benefit those who deserve mercy, when fully implemented.

Since you’ve agreed that such a system would be better than the one we now have, our argument is academic. Philosophically we may disagree, but I will work towards jury rights in the future, in an attempt to disrupt unjust prosecutions.

-Jake

Sounds a lot like rationalization of an excuse to fuck with someone (by deliberately making them endure a trial) and then saying, “it’s ok – that’s just the justice system doing its job”

I don’t believe rights are “enshrined” – they exist, inherently, apart from any other consideration, condition or attitude. (The only thing being, they need not come into play until coming in contact with another human.) You may disagree with the fact that I have a natural right, but that doesn’t mean I still don’t have the right. (what I meant by, apart from attitude)

“The right of the jury trial is best defined as your right to equal justice under the law. (To an impartial determiner of fact, intent, and moral right.)”

Correctly understood, that’s not really a “right”. You have only one right, really, that being to not have initiation of force or fraud perpetrated upon you.

“Theoretically, sure. Practically, this is an asinine statement.”

You don’t seem to be “getting it” – that my right supercedes any other objective. And yes, you have the right to utter the words that it is asinine; however, in reality, it’s not asinine at all..it just is what it is.

“As such, your “innocence” is simply an argument. An argument that will be presented at a trial in cases where guilt is uncertain.”

Like I said, not my problem. I have a right (only if innocent) not to have my fate rest on such arguments. Guilt is always going to be “uncertain” (by someone). You could go on ad infinitum accusing someone (because others will always start out as uncertain) of various things and making them spend their whole lives on trial. And that’s what could happen to unpopular people. Ergo, my innocence would be fact, not simply an argument. So you’re wrong here on this count.

“All of your statements are weak, because they don’t contradict any of my assertions”

Nope. Check again. My statement was sound, because it correctly pointed out that “jury rights” lie in the realm of practicality, not principle. Do some more philosophizing, if necessary.

“where the innocent man has a right to a trial, and the grieving parents have a right to try him, even if he doesn’t want it.”

Nope. Because a “need” doesn’t translate into a “right”. Listen to yourself: you are starting to sound like a welfare state proponent, implying that a patently deserving need translates into an obligation upon another. Wrong. The grieving parents, just like starving parents, have a need, to be sure. But the ends do not justify the means, in no case, no how. You have to learn that judicial administration is a commodity, just like everything else. But you never have the right to pursue the initiation of force or fraud in achieving goals, even worthy ones. There is no natural right to try an innocent person. That may be hard to wrap your mind around, but do you understand the meaning of a paradox?

“…Because it’s a better alternative than simply killing them both on the spot, which was the likelihood prior to jury trials.”

That’s not acceptable, either, in the natural rights view.

“You put forth an imaginary reality that a person has a right to refuse to be tried, without suggesting a more libertarian alternative that can in any way be practiced. As such, your arguments discredit the idea of libertarianism. (ie: If all libertarians think what you think, then rape and murder will go unpunished, because there will be no mechanism to separate the guilty from the innocent.)”

Welcome to the real world, Jake: there IS no mechanism to separate the guilty from the innocent, and never will be. How does that reality discredit librertarianism? It’s a post-libertarian situation, the only caveat being that a wrong decision could thrust an unlibertarian act on top of another one (or presumed one).

My experience is different from yours, so maybe that’s why I’m setting forth so strongly my right to refuse to be tried: because I’ve been “tried” so many times, for no good reason. Why would you assert that someone has a greater “right” to place someone on trial (accuse) over and over again (or do you propose a limit of some sort?) than to say “Enough is enough – I refuse to be tried”?

“If you do preach this to the uninitiated, then you are preaching a system that even the layman can see would never work in any capacity.”

ROFLMAO. And spending practically your whole life up on charges (even from self-professed libertarians) exhausting your time, energy, resources and reputation, WORKS?? Sell this tripe to someone else, not to me.

“The problems you present with malicious prosecution are dramatically reduced by proper jury trial, because there is then a great chance that any jury will find on behalf of a countersuit from the defendant.”

I appreciate this. But hmmm, let me see: “greater chance” vs invoking my absolute right not to be enslaved to any extent? I think you know by now which one I’ll choose, Jake. You’ve got a lot to learn, though.

The right of the jury trial is best defined as your right to equal justice under the law. (To an impartial determiner of fact, intent, and moral right.)

I generally disagree with your interpretation of reality, but since you want less government and I want less goverment, I think you’re a good person and I wish you the best of luck.

You wrote: “That’s a silly statement, since cops in a State-run system are going to be getting paychecks whether or not there are laws on the books relating to marijuana. ”
If all cops were logical, you’d be right. But they aren’t so you’re wrong. They are emotionally tied to defenign their prior actions. If they’ve arrested people and ruined lives enforcing the drug laws, they can’t feel good about themselves if they believe the drug laws are wrong. Empirical evidence shows that police support the drug laws for a variety of bad reasons. Hence what I said about defense prosecutors seeking to remove law enforcment (for law enforcement’s common financial and historically-motivated moral bias) during “voir dire”.

“You cannot refute, however, that a person who has NOT committed an unlibertarian act has a natural, inalienable right to REFUSE to be subjected to any aspect of a trial, including the verdict.”

Theoretically, sure. Practically, this is an asinine statement.
But libertarian practicality defines any theory of human rights.

By your definition, we all have a right to appeal to the all-knowing. But the all-knowing is a fiction, and does not exist outside of your definition of it.

As such, your “innocence” is simply an argument. An argument that will be presented at a trial in cases where guilt is uncertain.

All of your statements are weak, because they don’t contradict any of my assertions. In real life, if there are two people who are found standing next to a raped and murdered kid, and only one of their semen is inside the kid, this is a clear cut case where the innocent man has a right to a trial, and the grieving parents have a right to try him, even if he doesn’t want it.

…Because it’s a better alternative than simply killing them both on the spot, which was the likelihood prior to jury trials.

You put forth an imaginary reality that a person has a right to refuse to be tried, without suggesting a more libertarian alternative that can in any way be practiced. As such, your arguments discredit the idea of libertarianism. (ie: If all libertarians think what you think, then rape and murder will go unpunished, because there will be no mechanism to separate the guilty from the innocent.)

So, hopefully, you do not preach your concept that innocent people have a right to never be tried (in the year 2009, unamplified human intelligence being what it is).
If you do preach this to the uninitiated, then you are preaching a system that even the layman can see would never work in any capacity.

Again, the ISIL links are there for your benefit. The preservation of jury rights should always be in the top 5 issues the Libertarian Party wishes to promote as its SOLUTION to current problems.

The problems you present with malicious prosecution are dramatically reduced by proper jury trial, because there is then a great chance that any jury will find on behalf of a countersuit from the defendant.

That’s a silly statement, since cops in a State-run system are going to be getting paychecks whether or not there are laws on the books relating to marijuana. Policy reforms – as long as they don’t threaten the amount they get paid or their benefits – such as relaxing marijuana restrictions may well be palatable to the typical cop, but I can’t speak to the overall numbers. I have talked to many cops who say they would rather not deal with pot smokers. On the other hand, it may be an issue that cops would feel safer spending time around pot smokers (going after) than murderers and rapists.

Here you seem to comprehend my point, even taking it to its universal conclusion…and then proceed to say it’s a ‘weak statement’. WTF? What’s up with that?

“I respond: I have no idea what you are proposing. Let me see if I can even understand what you’re saying. A good system needs to sort out who is innocent and guilty before it reaches the question of how to sort out who is innocent or guilty.

This makes zero sense.”

You’re only just now figuring out there’s a paradox when it comes to administration of justice, Jake?

“I respond: I indicate a principle by naming the rule, and you reply with the exception to the rule, just to be a contrarian.”

Not really. That’s why I said “maybe” (not so fast). I’ve heard it said (by some cops, even) that cops really would prefer not deal with enforcing marijuana laws, but feel they “have to” as long as it’s on the books and are being watched. So – and pardon my pun – the jury may still be out on that one. I can’t say; I haven’t seen polling data on it. You could be right – I’m just not sure and it certainly wasn’t intended to “be contrarian”.

“I respond: Your problems are not with a fair trial, they are with a lack of a trial of any kind, brought to bear by the lack of justice caused by a lack of common law jury trials, which has been clearly enumerated in the links I posted. One of your largest problems is with bar-licensing of lawyers, which increases the cost of legal advice, while decreasing its quality by eliminating competition. Also, you have a problem with precedent, and the amorality that it inserts into a coerced jury system. The two prior problems would be eliminated with a proper “common law”/constitutional American/libertarian jury trial system. Moreover, the qualifier “if your innocent” is meaningless in its use here, since the purpose of the trial is to determine innocence or guilt of wrongdoing.”

No, my problems aren’t so much with the existence of trials, fair or otherwise – it’s in spending an inordinate amount of my time being accused of things, of which I’m innocent. And this includes people who say they want a Stagte de novo, or a libertarian society. You still haven’t convinced me why I should HAVE to spend my time letting people “try” me, just because some other people wish to lie and falsely accuse. So no, it’s not meaningless. (Why don’t the false accusers ever have to stand trial?? But yeah, yeah – I know, that gets addressed in anarcho capitalist justice systems…I’ve read Rothbard.)

“I prefer the moderating effect of juries to that of –you don’t say– whatever system you propose as an alternative. I suspect you have no alternative, and that you haven’t thought it out fully.”

Correct on one count, incorrect on the other. I’ve thought it out fully (likely more thorough than you, actually) but no, I haven’t come up with a perfect alternative. My thesis is that no one can.

However, if you have a natural right to be left alone (not agressed upon) then you have a natural right not to be forced to subject yourself to a trial, provided you have not aggressed upon anyone else. That’s libertarianism 101. There’s an element of slavery involved in being forced to be put on trial, and since there is, you’d better not put an innocent person on trial. Paradox, yes. But not my problem. If you think I’m guilty but I’m in fact innocent, it’s your problem, not mine. And scream all you want about the paradox and how it can’t work and carts before horses, blah blah blah. My natural right as an innocent person is absolute, and supercedes any fallible judicial procedures, including juries.

Right now, I support having the kind of juries you champion, as opposed to its current attempted alternatives, but I see the issue as a post-libertarian (what to do after we suspect a breach of libertarianism) one rather than one of defining libertarianism.

You cannot refute, however, that a person who has NOT committed an unlibertarian act has a natural, inalienable right to REFUSE to be subjected to any aspect of a trial, including the verdict.

Gary wrote: “I choose to be both idealistic and realistic.”
I respond: Good, then you choose jury rights (the optimal check on government until people/machines are smarter), and we’re basically in agreement.

Gary replied: ““Me: So who do we trust to enact justice? If we let cops try them, then we let cops try marijuana smokers.”
Gary: Maybe not so fast. I had a former cop (he told me he used to arrest pot smokers) sign my petition the other day, after I told him it was to “stop arresting” people for “using marijuana”.”
I respond: I indicate a principle by naming the rule, and you reply with the exception to the rule, just to be a contrarian. I’m not going to even explain why this is wrong, beyond this: There’s a reason why defense attorneys eliminate cops from the jury during defensive “voir dire”. It’s because –as a demographic– they are collecting paychecks from a system that they are clearly and obviously beholden to. An exceptional or moral cop is the exception to the rule, and you know it.
See: http://www.kopbusters.com

Gary wrote: If you’re innocent, you have a right to REFUSE to be tried, period. (And fuck the so-called “right” to a trial by jury, or trial of any kind, for that matter; remember, I’ve been there, and I’m sick of my “right to be tried” that takes valuable time out of my schedule and keeps me from working and being productive and getting to play.)
I respond: Your problems are not with a fair trial, they are with a lack of a trial of any kind, brought to bear by the lack of justice caused by a lack of common law jury trials, which has been clearly enumerated in the links I posted. One of your largest problems is with bar-licensing of lawyers, which increases the cost of legal advice, while decreasing its quality by eliminating competition. Also, you have a problem with precedent, and the amorality that it inserts into a coerced jury system. The two prior problems would be eliminated with a proper “common law”/constitutional American/libertarian jury trial system. Moreover, the qualifier “if your innocent” is meaningless in its use here, since the purpose of the trial is to determine innocence or guilt of wrongdoing.

Gary wrote: If you’re guilty, then not only are you obliged to be “tried”, but you’re obliged to bear rectification and restitution costs of your culpable actions.
I respond: Are you a simpleton? 100% of the purpose of a jury is to determine innocence or guilt. There is no adequate (perfect justice) system for determining guilt. I prefer the moderating effect of juries to that of –you don’t say– whatever system you propose as an alternative. I suspect you have no alternative, and that you haven’t thought it out fully. I agree with you that (those found guilty in a trial) who are in fact guilty should have to pay for the costs they’ve imposed on the innocent of the trial (time) and restitution for the offense itself.

Gary wrote: A good “system” needs to sort that out first, before it reaches the question of “who tries”, otherwise, people like me spend their whole lives unncessarily bothered by having to defend themselves from bullshit (and yes, bullshit even from people who have claimed all their lives to be libertarians (Haugh, Kohlhaas, et al).
I respond: I have no idea what you are proposing. Let me see if I can even understand what you’re saying. A good system needs to sort out who is innocent and guilty before it reaches the question of how to sort out who is innocent or guilty.

This makes zero sense.

If you are stating that there need to be good rules for establishing evidence, then I agree. But this isn’t the problem with our courts. The rules for evidence are very good. The problem with the US court system is that it has done away with common law juries that were previously the greatest check on government power ever devised by man.

Sadly, rather than return the US to proper jury trials, the Libertarian Party (and most libertarian candidates) advocate putting forth positions that most people are not intellectually equipped to analyze.

Sadly, it appears that most libertarians are not intellectually equipped to analyze jury trial, nor are they concerned with learning how our system ran afoul.

Until these problems are corrected, I expect the LP to be a marginal force in society. After these problems are corrected, I expect the Libertarian Party to be a major force in US politics.

The last name of the guy who installed insulation in my mother’s house had the last name Penn. He was familiar with William Penn, and had done more research than most libertarians about common law juries. He asked me why the LP didn’t focus more on jury rights, and decentralization of power that is obviously constitutional. He wondered why we aren’t selling ourselves to the public as the party that wants what we’re all taught in school that we’re supposed to have.

I replied: “You’re exactly right, my friend! Why aren’t we doing that? …I personally am.”

Gary, please follow the ISIL links. They aren’t there as examples of great graphic design. They’re there because they destroy all arguments against impartial jury selection and operation.

Bon chance,

-Jake

Maybe not so fast. I had a former cop (he told me he used to arrest pot smokers) sign my petition the other day, after I told him it was to “stop arresting” people for “using marijuana”.

And as an addendum to my above posts, it’s as simple as this (from a natural rights perspective):

If you’re innocent, you have a right to REFUSE to be tried, period. (And fuck the so-called “right” to a trial by jury, or trial of any kind, for that matter; remember, I’ve been there, and I’m sick of my “right to be tried” that takes valuable time out of my schedule and keeps me from working and being productive and getting to play.)

If you’re guilty, then not only are you obliged to be “tried”, but you’re obliged to bear rectification and restitution costs of your culpable actions.

A good “system” needs to sort that out first, before it reaches the question of “who tries”, otherwise, people like me spend their whole lives unncessarily bothered by having to defend themselves from bullshit (and yes, bullshit even from people who have claimed all their lives to be libertarians (Haugh, Kohlhaas, et al).

There is no dichotomy – as you seem to think – between knowing and understanding pure princple theory on the one hand, and accepting a flawed reality and trying to work the best of a bad situation (and bad it is, indeed), formidable as it may be.

I choose to be both idealistic and realistic.

In the proper “common law” jury system, when the evidence is presented that her wounds were self-inflicted and there was no truthful evidence for her claims, …you live.”

There is nothing in my post that is inaccurate or inconsistent. You still don’t have a “natural” right to a trial by a randomly-chosen, arbitrary number of jurors. Nor, as your illustration suggests, do you have a “natural obligation” to sit through or endure a trial – whether by juries or otherwise – if you’re innocent of anything, simply because someone fingers you. If I’m innocent, why should I HAVE TO risk conviction by enduring a trial?

It still comes down to practical and not principle.

While those options might be the future of justice, juries are justice at its best, right now. With each state interference that we remove from the current jury system, we get closer to justice.

However, your post seems to not comprehend how strong of a check proper juries are. They are –by far– the strongest check on government power today.

It is to the Libertarian Party’s shame that they do not seek to correct the gradual systemic erosions to jury rights that have occurred over the last 158 years.

Were even the 4 erosions mentioned above to be corrected, we would be vastly closer to living in a libertarian society. Or do you really think that one in 12 randomly-chosen and seated people would not choose to nullify the marijuana laws? Somewhere around 50% of the public has smoked marijuana, but they are never intentionally allowed on a jury, if they know they can nullify.

Moreover, even most of the libertarians posting on this board seem to have no comprehension of how to survive “voir dire”, and several “libertarians” I’ve spoken with over the last few days had allowed themselves to be removed from a jury. –Thus allowing themselves to be the ignorant tools of some insane and compassionless prosecutor.

Again, this confirms what I realized a few years ago: Most libertarians don’t care enough for freedom to try to make it a reality. They are fantastic when they are in cloud-cuckoo land, and don’t have to talk to conformists, in order to get the freedom that they claim to want. The second they do, though, is the second they decide they’d rather be online talking with other people who know as much as they do (or perhaps at a philosophy supper club meeting, doing the same thing).

I sincerely doubt that you can find a better means of inserting intelligence, conscience, and judgement into the justice system.

And if you think there is no need for “external justice” then you clearly aren’t familiar with the nature of crime in the world. (It appears you may favor a DRO-style legal system, but I can’t say that for sure, based on your post.)

Moreover, even with juries currently in their current sorry state, they are the only portion of the system that makes use of libertarian educational efforts to limit the power of the state.

All other portions of the state must be abolished to reduce their force, since those who are employed in all other positions are so employed because they sought a position of force.

You’re right only about one thing: human intelligence is weak, in comparison to machine intelligence.

I have no doubt that an expert system (if programmed by a conscientious libertarian) could come back with consistent pro-justice recommendations in any trial, assuming its inputs were properly entered.

But this last point is a fantasy, because an intelligent and corrupted statist could just as easily program a perversion into the system that favored “private” prison contractors (as the current legal system currently does).

All that said, conscience, and the reticence to take responsibility for an informed and personal role in punishment (“passing judgement”) is a great power of juries. Beyond that, the prosecutor’s unwillingness to gamble with bad odds of informed jurors is the greatest check on government power currently known to man.

That’s why they had to stack the system the way they did.

Is one in 12 people a libertarian? No. Is one in 12 people libertarian in some way? It’s likely. In ten trials, you start to run into libertarians (or people who refuse to punsih someone without good reason) at least once (120 people).
Those prosecutors who lose 1/10 trials (out of the gate, and never mind the details that would cause a non-libertarian to nullify) are quickly seen to be overzealous tyrants who are wasting state resources. And this is by their own bosses, who control their purse strings.

The prison system was minimal when there were informed juries. As such, I propose returning to such a system because it is a vast improvement over the current system.

I (and Lysander Spooner) also disagree that there is nothing in the study of “natural law” that authorizes jurors to try someone. Read his essay “An Essay on the Trial by Jury”. Spooner was too soon to witness the explosion in computing power and the laws of information that proved him right, but he was good with statistical odds, and understood the power of randomly-inserted conscience to cow the state. There are many laws of information science that indicate that you cannot remove bias unless you decentralize power. If everyone trying you is a cop, then you’ll never have justice. If noone tries anyone, then Platt and Matix (two real-life villians documented in “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross) get to ride through town, shoot people with high-powered rifles, and steal their cars –until they die happy of old age.

I’ve never seen an anarchist system that adequately addresses psychopathology. (Even if it addresses it as well or better than the current system does.)

So who do we trust to enact justice? If we let cops try them, then we let cops try marijuana smokers. If we let the nearest thing they have to peers try them, then there is a great chance that –unless random human conscience can convict them– they will be set free (unless they are truly evil and have committed serious wrong).

Is there anything you disagree with in the “common law”? Causation (intentioned action and action) and harm?

Juries are a game of statistical odds. Proper juries set people free more often than they convict. Improper juries of today convict almost 100% of the time.

The solution seems obvious to me: reinstate proper juries.

And as far as anarchist solutions that work better than juries, and can be applied starting today, there is only radio silence.

Until we reach the singularity, juries are the best way to deal with the problem of limited human intelligence judging human actions that initiate force.

In the anarchist “system” (unless we’re talking modified DRO where DROs can enact common law, with radomly-selected nonmember juries for the initiation of force), when my girlfriend claims you raped her, I blow your ass away.

In the proper “common law” jury system, when the evidence is presented that her wounds were self-inflicted and there was no truthful evidence for her claims, …you live.

All evidence is that the proper jury system can work great, but that it is no longer the proper jury system. Even the improper jury system that we have works great when it is made proper. …So, before we judge what doesn’t exist (but which can exist, and did once exist), let’s put it into place, and see how well we can do?

…Or we can theorize about what it would be like to live among the clouds while having no intention or means of building anything that raises our elevation.

However, as an anarchist, there are many fundamental things about juries that I cannot necessarily endorse.

There is nothing inherent in a natural-rights justice system that dictates that a certain number of people – or anyone – should have the power to “decide” your guilt or innocence, even presupposing patently libertarian laws being enforced. A pure, libertarian, rights-based society doesn’t logically lead to the existence of jurors or juries at all, not even privately financed ones.

The most well-meaning, well-run jury system still has the capacity for initiation of force (erroneously convicting an innocent). Therefore, no jury characteristic is a matter of principle; it only boils down to a practical matter (a highly arguable matter at that) where the delicate matter of rendering justice is gone about imperfectly with real potential (actually inevitabilities) of actually creating some injustices along the way.

http://www.fija.org
http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
http://isil.org/resources/lit/new-hope-fija.html

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.”
Henry David Thoreau

If every citizen in the USA understood their rights as jurors, including the fact that the prosecutor would try to have them removed during “voir dire” (if they showed any sign of intelligence) there would be no tyranny.

Jury nullification of law is 100% of the battle for individual freedom. If as much effort and financing went into jury rights activism as currently goes into attempting to win elections, the United States would already be 100% libertarian.

I cringe when I encounter libertarians who can’t grasp the concept of jury rights. It’s like an 1850s abolitionist not being in favor of equal rights for blacks: …backwards.

-Jake

PLEASE SPREAD THIS LIBERTARIAN JURY RIGHTS YOUTUBE COMMENT:
Google “Fully Informed Jury Association”
1) Voir Dire – 1850 – jury questioning instated to rig juries in favor of those who agreed with the fugitive slave act.
2) 1800s-1960s instatement of mandatory bar membership (licensing of lawyers) meant that justice was licensed by the government, and those who disagreed with the law could be disbarred
3) “Sparf and Hansen v the USA” (1895) allowed judges to instruct the jury, and fail to inform them of their rights
4) Gagging of free speech in court

The founders all believed that one of the primary purposes of the jury was to judge the law itself. Since this is true, what Paulie wrote is partly wrong. The ability of any juror to hang the jury contradicts Paulie’s “consensus” statement. The jury is designed solely as a check on the abusive power of government to punish. Judicial instruction is tyranny, except in so far as it informs the jury about the nature of the law in an unbiased way (which never happens in today’s courts, since the judge upholds the prosecutors’ “motions in limine” —AKA gag orders–, and other tyrannies, as well as accepting blatant untruths about standing from police officers and other government agents. See http://marcstevens.net for more on that subject.)

If we can return the practice of seating randomly-selected juries and informing them about their right to veto bad laws (the fact that they are superior in authority to any judge), we can prevent unjust punishments. Preventing unjust punishments this way would restore power to the people, and simultaneously protect every individual right. It would also enlighten the public about what they never learned in high school civics class: the jury is the fourth and most powerful branch of government.

MHW is right, Kent M is right, Paulie’s conclusion is right…

Elf Nino’s mom is completely incorrect. Opposition to the law AND to the bogus oaths of voir dire are both unconstitutional and diametrically opposed to jury rights. The three historical common law functions of the jury are to
determine:
1) Whether the law was broken
2) Whether the law itself is moral
3) Whether the law, if moral, is being fairly applied in the specific case

ENM states incorrectly that only #2 above is legitimate reason to nullify. She states correctly that a pre-existing bias against the law is a bias, but this is meaningless. It is morally OK to have a pre-existing bias against injustice.

Moreover, “voir dire” is the practice that allows prosecutors to question jurors for “bias” and remove them for possessing anti-government bias. “Voir dire” (French for jury rigging) is a relatively new practice that was instituted in American courts in the early 1850s, when Northerners were nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act in large numbers. Does ENM think they should have considered the enforcement of the fugitive slave act? That’s preposterous for any libertarian to believe.

It was planned and put on by John E. Skjefte, 661-902-3792. Politicalvoodoodolls@roadrunner.com

I had advised him previously that Runner, et al would see a microphone and run to it and use this event as one of their own press conferences.

Then when I dared to criticize THE EVENT for the above stated reasons and that the sound system stunk by using my email newsletter, Skjefte emailed THREATS to me a senior citizen.

Of course I reported them and forwarded the threats to Sheriff Baca and advised Skjefte that IF he continued to threaten me or started stalking me I would get a Restraining Order against him.

If you bother to go to my yahoo free listing you’ll see what I believe are his “Comments” about me professionally as a “Clown” and that I haven’t worked as a PI in years and only write emails to the board of supervisors (Which I do).

The Republican Assembly in Lancaster/Palmdale will LOSE the next election here. Knight barely won against a really dumb (In my opinion) liberal Democrat lady.

The AVRA is headed up by LOSER Lew Stults who is also Howard “Buck” McKeons man in the AV.

Lew Stults warned a local landscaping business “Friend” when I reported them for hiring illegal aliens to ICE.

Lew Stults REPORTEDLY had the FBI follow me and I think bug my phone and go through my mail, for my insistance that The Lancaster Toxic Dump be cleaned up.

Lew Stults STILL has not Bore Tested this dump as the MILLIONS of gallons of toxic waste liquids including, but NOT limited to, Heavy metals, acids and fuel slowly leech towards Lancaster’s water table below.

The AVRA here is full of cronyism and corruption and deserves to go.

Put the crazed liberal-Democrats in next time because THEY are what the loser’s here deserve.

Thanks so much for your interest.