It seems "due process" has broken off into issues of courts and nullification, roads and insurance, and property rights and liability.
Since I don't equate rights with laws, I don't disagree with the right of due process or fully-informed juries. Whether "rights" would still be required in the absence of government/laws, or whether courts would still exist, is largely beside the point; a libertarian need not disagree with the principle of rights. While the issue of whether courts SHOULD exist may be complex, I can't see any reason to disagree with (the RIGHT of) jury nullification. Besides, no matter the mentality of the jury, it only takes ONE fully-informed juror to nullify a bad charge. While the issue of roads and accident liability may be complex, the issue of insurance law seems easily disagreeable, per Sasan's point about forced injustice for all. ---------------------- --- In [email protected], Harland Harrison <harlan...@...> wrote: > Actually, I approve of mandatory liability insurance for > automobiles, myself. If I drive into a crowd of pedestrians, who > will compensate the victims or their families? Liability insurance > guarantees that accident victims have compensation. Why should > Libertarians oppose that? I oppose it because no one should be forced to buy a product that they don't want. It is an unjust, criminal act. It's true that some victims might not be compensated properly, but the POSSIBILITY of injustice for SOME is no excuse to GUARANTEE injustice for ALL. > If the public roads were private enterprises, the owners would be > liable for injuries on their property. I see no reason why a property owner should be liable for an injury simply because it occurred on their property. ---Sasan
