Jon, that is the problem with federal and state legislation and
regulations even most of the county and municiple corprate ordinances
they can only rarely have enough case by case know how to do justice,
the courts with a fully informed jury and grand jury alone with the
two parties having a reasonable say so in picking regular juries,
judges and appeal judges are far more able to deal with the case by
case issues that justice so often
requires.
I think I may have thought of a possible solution to the jury
and judge picking. You say you think sortation would be better, I
said I thought the two competing parties should have the say so and I
still say I'm right unless the two parties can not agree then they
would be given the word that if they did not agree the selections
would be selected from radomly from a pool. Still each party would
get a cetain number of strikes in a similar fashion as the vor dire
process.
I think a big part of our problem is the courts which I think
is the most important part of government has been vastly overshadowed
by the legislative and excutive branches and I fault the LP partly
for puuting so much effort, and money into working towards the less
important
branches.
The often overlooked part of the first admendment is the
right to petition for redress of greivences. I think if a person has
a grievence that can not be worked out in private they should be able
to bring it before a Peace Officer, if the Peace Officer can not work
it out he would with permission of the petitioner forward the
compliant to the courts, both plantiffs and defedents would get a
voucher for private attorney and investagtor
fees.
If it was a crimnal case that a GRandjury had forwarded by
unamious agreement the Prosucutor would represent the state but that
should mean that he is not ncessarily against the defendent if he
withholds evidence such as DNA that can show the defend innocent he
should at least be runned out of office and barred from practicing
law. The Defedent should get a vocher for attorney and investigation
fees.--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> The tension here is is between Terry's attempt to reduce what might
be
> called a "rule of civic conduct" down to a simple "non-aggression
> principle", and the recognition by most of the rest of us that the
> statements of that principle simply do not, and cannot, contain
within
> them the amount of logical information needed to derive decisions
for
> how people should conduct themselves in a full range of everyday
> situations.
> At the Founding of this country most of those rules could be
subsumed
> within a body of legal traditions and Blackstone's 4-volume set of
> Commentaries on Common Law, covering everything from tort to fraud
to
> contracts to probate to nuisance to property rights disputes. It
would
> be absurd to try to deal with the complexities of life today with
so
> little law and government. We have entire libraries full of it.
> Now one could argue that we have overcomplicated the issues, but an
> equally good case can be made that we have no complicated them
enough.
> It can also be argued that the essence of that entire body of law
and
> government is expressed in the "non-aggression principle". But if
that
> argument is made then what one is doing is loading a lot more
> information into the terms "non-aggression" or "initiation of
force"
> than those words have for most readers. Complexity should be
reduced as
> far as possible but no farther.
> Consider the concept of "recklessness". What is "reckless"
behavior, and
> when does it become a "treat" justifying the "initiation"
of "force"? If
> some guy is playing around with fissionable materials, at what
point do
> we intervene to deal with the risk that he will set off a nuclear
> explosion? If a guy is experimenting with genetic engineering of
> viruses, at what point do we intervene to deal with the risk that
he
> will develop a plague that will wipe out humanity? Do we wait for
it to
> happen, or step in to prevent it, and if so, how?
> The "non-aggression principle" seems to presume a world of
basically
> civilized people whose behavior only needs adjustment at the
margins.
> That is not the world we live in. Too many people are not only not
> civilized, but actively bent on exterminating us, and extinguishing
> anyone who doesn't think like they do. Humanity worldwide is not in
a
> state of civil society, but in a state of war. Libertarian
principles
> apply to isolated pockets of civilization where conditions permit
them
> to operate, and we can all try to extend those pockets to the
entire
> world, but we are a long way from achieving that happy state of
affairs.
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
> 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
