[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

Basically I see a bunch of scarecrow arguments.

Not a single scarecrow argument. I don't think you know what that means.

Ben, please show me:

-A developed country with no taxes (or even substantially lower than us).

Substantially Lower Personal Taxation

Hong Kong (yes, the city state absorbed by the People's Republic.) Singapore. Taiwan. Finland for that matter. The rapidly growing economies in the former Soviet Block of Eastern Europe like the Czech Republic, etc. Oh, and zero in the United States up until the 20th Century. Not a small or simple place. Human nature didn't change between then and now either.

-A developed country with no gun laws.

None. But they vary widely around the world and there are some curious, counter-intuitive examples. In Switzerland EVERYONE owns a gun by law.

-A developed country without significant limitations on food and drugs.

Varies a great deal. Europe in many cases is far less restrictive. We used to have effectively none and somehow survived and developed. Dive deep into the basis of the laws and you'll find, contrary to popular opinion, two large factions: 1) pietists who wanted to save the world and keep people from hurting themselves, and not a small amount of straight up racism 2) large pharmaceutical type companies that wanted protected business. Kind of like how the recent legislation profoundly protects brand name pharmaceuticals. Some socialists (i.e., not libertarians) have done a lot of research in this area and agree. It's not at all quite what you think it is.

-A developed country without it's own currency.

It's fine they all have their own currency. It's the protection from the use of anything BUT THEIR currency for private transactions that I object to. This used to be the case in much of the world. It was changed by force, not by the choice of the people. We can't even use a gold clause in large international contracts. What are you so worried about? If the domestic currency is sound, of course most people would use it for convenience. The people who make these laws know what the real problem is and it involves their power, not protecting the public in the slightest. It's not at all quite what you think it is.

You won't be able to. The reason is that modern society dictates these things are necessary.

False. Some people dictate it to other people and they use guns and cages to make it happen. To a great extent the masses are pawned and brainwashed into believing a lot things are necessary that in fact are not.

"It is our intent to make them as unlike their fathers as possible." - (POS) Woodrow Wilson

It's taken a long time and there is, thankfully, increasing resistance in the US and even Europe to government power. David Cameron's election in the UK was a bit of a surprise for example. Here in the States there are a number of candidates who are doing well who are decidedly more freedom and less government oriented.

You're taking human nature out of the equation and that's why you're wrong. The system you advocate can simply not exist for a large populous regardless of what you say.

Indeed I am talking about human nature, and it is FULLY in the equation. Starting with the obvious, but routinely ignored fact that those who constitute government aren't immune to it!

And here's the great part. The system as it is in the developed world is in fact murdering itself, and we're probably leading the way. Watch what happens to your precious government ordered society when the gig is up. Imagine Greece without a power to bail them out. Then what? The same ideas you advocate underly a number of economic fallacies of government action. That can't go on indefinitely and ultimately will stop one way or another. That's not going to be pretty for anyone and it doesn't have to be. Fortunately, it's not just me out here on the frontier and there are some encouraging signs of defiance.

I'm not saying we're North Korea. Nor do I think we'll just transport into a fully libertarian society. But we sure as hell better knock it off with the screwy economics and get realistic about some of the ideas underlying the bad choices. That's for sure. The same people who think it's fine to stick a gun in your face to make you wear a seat belt are the same ones who think we need numerous economic interventions and planning of varying degrees, to make things neat, orderly, and safe. Peas in a pod. They are genuinely dangerous.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

-You could make a CARB legal kit for the Camaro I'm sure. Nobody has done it because it's difficult. Why don't you make one and put it through? Nobody is stopping you just because it hasn't been done.

Guess who loves the CARB cert process? You guessed it, the big boys like Edlebrock? Why? It puts smaller less well capitalized competitors out of business. This is to a great extent the history of regulatory law in the US. You think it's about protecting you don't you.

How about a sensible law, one based on the object of the law. That is the emissions your car actually puts out. The individual's implementation of power plant is irrelevant. Pass the sniffer. If it's a turbine that burns peanut butter, what does it matter.

I can only imagine what kind of food we would have with no regulation.

Good food. Like bacon wrapped hot dogs that used to be sold in LA for decades and decades. Not anymore. Some nanny decided that in order to sell bacon wrapped hot dogs you'd have to have a $26,000 specialized cart. Mind you, the public kept going back to the same vendors for years and years. The government shut them down. Can you explain why? I can't. I can drown you in examples like this.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

Since jurors decide fact, not law, you don't need to explain anything to them.

There are often extensive jury instructions given. Also, there is a long and drawn out jury selection process for each case. This could be substantially simplified and all of the taxpayer funded overhead eliminated.

And yes, everyone is biased in some way, but having random different biases is what makes it fair. Also, if juries were only voluntary then it's no longer random and representative of society. Because only certain kinds of people will opt to volunteer.

In reality, juries are never going to be a representative sample of society because attorneys are goddamned careful about who they pick to put on them. If it were a truly random sample of the population, with no culling, then you might have a point. As it is, you really don't IMO.

This is besides the point for me. I'm not property of the state. You can ask me to serve. You can't force me (morally).

[enkeivette]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

There are often extensive jury instructions given. Also, there is a long and drawn out jury selection process for each case. This could be substantially simplified and all of the taxpayer funded overhead eliminated.



In reality, juries are never going to be a representative sample of society because attorneys are goddamned careful about who they pick to put on them. If it were a truly random sample of the population, with no culling, then you might have a point. As it is, you really don't IMO.

This is besides the point for me. I'm not property of the state. You can ask me to serve. You can't force me (morally).

I know all about jury instruction. Those instructions are given to remove the law questions from the facts, jurors are often taken down a multiple choice path in deciding the facts, so at the end the question of law is obvious.

Attorneys do not pick juries. They are allowed to remove jury members for non-prejudiced reasons. But still random, just a selected pool of the random.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

. . .Attorneys do not pick juries. They are allowed to remove jury members for non-prejudiced reasons. But still random, just a selected pool of the random.

That hurts my brain. If I throwout a handful of change that randomly falls on the ground and remove all the nickels and dimes, exactly how random is it? Selection by exclusion. A jury will NEVER have me on it. I will always be excluded. (Haven't been called in 10 years since the last time since I stated my opinion when asked.)

Again, my principle objection is the compulsory nature of the service, not the concept of a jury per se.

[enkeivette]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

That hurts my brain. If I throwout a handful of change that randomly falls on the ground and remove all the nickels and dimes, exactly how random is it? Selection by exclusion. A jury will NEVER have me on it. I will always be excluded. (Haven't been called in 10 years since the last time since I stated my opinion when asked.)

Again, my principle objection is the compulsory nature of the service, not the concept of a jury per se.

You're defending a black rapist with a prior. Your perrogative is to select only black males in their 20s.

You have a room full of 19 jurors, you're allowed to cut at least three, so is the prosecution, without cause. The prosecution cuts the only three black males in their twenties.

You're left with an old black woman, asians, whites and mexicans. Please select as many black males in their twenties as you can. Go.

[enkeivette]

What the lawyers do is only get rid of those they believe will be the most prejudicial to their side, the rest is random, no doubt.

[enkeivette]

Jury duty is a more direct form of paying taxes. You want to drive on the road, give up some of your paycheck. You want firefighters to hose your burning ass off, give it up. You want a jury to be there for you when you need a trial, give up your time for someone else.

[enkeivette]

When I think of bacon wrapped hot dogs my heart hurts.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

You're defending a black rapist with a prior. Your perrogative is to select only black males in their 20s.

You have a room full of 19 jurors, you're allowed to cut at least three, so is the prosecution, without cause. The prosecution cuts the only three black males in their twenties.

You're left with an old black woman, asians, whites and mexicans. Please select as many black males in their twenties as you can. Go.

And how many cases throughout history have been contested or were controversial because the jury wasn't suffeciently representive of the accused? What you state still ain't random. It's an attempt at something like randomness.

And one more time. My objection isn't the objective of a jury system (a perfectly noble and in fact classically liberal/libertarian objective of equality before the law, etc.) it is to the conscriptive nature. That's it really. It is a higher value to me to not be forced to do something I object to than the utilitarian arguments in favor of conscriptive jury service. That's all really.