[enkeivette]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

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.

It's a tax, and you don't like it. I sort of want to get jury duty this summer.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

. . You haven't been drafted and likely never will. . .

Just a bit of history. It was a libertarian of a stripe, Milton Friedman, author of Free to Choose who lead the charge for an all volunteer, non-conscription based armed service. Now if we strike all authority to conscript, we'll have something.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

It's a tax, and you don't like it. I sort of want to get jury duty this summer.

You volunteer for it. I opt out. We're both happy. Whattaya think? Or is a faux-randomness of jury selection more important than my choice?

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by 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.

My first preference is to pay for whatever I want/need to the greatest extent possible, have things taken/given to the minimal extents possible.

My second is for my taxes to pay for a professional and/or volunteer jury. Same for an army. No conscription. If I want to be a soldier or jurist, I'll let you know.

[SeanPlunk]

I'm done with this, but I still maintain a Libertarian style society is not possible and could only exist in a vacuum.

I do know what a scarecrow argument is for the record

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

. . .I do know what a scarecrow argument is for the record

I know you do. You made one when you asked about what country doesn't have a currency. Has nothing to do with what I was asserting

And, do not fear, prepare for liberation from the hateful bondage of the state. . . . commie.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

. . .And, do not fear, prepare for liberation from the hateful bondage of the state. . . . commie.

I won't stop until Adam can paint his car outside naked while I watch eating a bacon wrapped hot dog sold from an unlicensed street vendor. Wait, that didn't come out quite the way I meant.

[enkeivette]

Ben, yes, more important than your freedom IMO. Sorry.

So I think we can all agree, seat belts should not be required by law for adults. While some think it should be a legal requirement for children and others don't.



My great aunt, my grandma's twin sister, was actually thrown from a car because she was not wearing a seatbelt and a train hit her car after the pile up, so had she been stuck in there by her seatbelt she would likely have died.

She refused to wear seatbelts after that. Still stupid IMO. Sort of like popping pills randomly and curing some disease you didn't know that you had, and swearing that for the rest of your life you will pop pills at random. Not solid logic IMO.

I always wear a seatbelt. Although sometimes when I drive without a shirt I put the shoulder belt under my arm, which is probably worse than not wearing one at all. Does anyone know?

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

Ben, yes, more important than your freedom IMO. Sorry.

Just keep thinking about what the goal of the system is and if there is a better more moral way to achieve it. It's not more important than freedom, mine or ANYBODY elses', IMO. It's also not necessary to achieve the intended goal of justice or equal protection under the law. Frankly, if I were accused of a crime, I'd prefer to have a jury relatively expert in the technical fields of evidence that are becoming increasingly important.

So I think we can all agree, seat belts should not be required by law for adults.

The fact even Sean concedes this point is encouraging. We're still in a sorta okay range.

While some think it should be a legal requirement for children and others don't.

I'll even admit this suggests a grey area. I just take the hardcore position because if you follow that line very far, it gets very odd very fast.

[jedhead]

Wearing the seat belt under your arm is dangerous because your rib cage could get damaged possibly causing internal bleeding. Also wearing your seat belt while reclined in your seat can cause decapitation as you submarine under your seat belt.

Bob