Jury Nullification (1 Viewer)

[tenordas]

Well, I am mostly talking about the small "l" libertarians, but some anarchists have joined the big "L" Libertarian party also.

I understand what you're saying (and agree). However, I was referring to Democrats and Republicans.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Teach Democracy

The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights Thomas Jefferson (Library of Congress) Thomas Jefferson, drawing on the current thinking of his time, used natural rights ideas to justify declaring independence from England. Thom, The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights...

www.crf-usa.org

was listening to a podcast about asteroid mining, and there was a dovetail in the conversation about property rights in space and it made me think about this thread
what would the libertarian position be on property right in space?

 

[St. Widge]

So I have to follow a contract just because it was thrust upon me by a group with power? So you are saying, that if someone's rights are violated that person have to bend to that authority?

Yes it is coercion. Definition:
"the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."

If you do not do something by the law, there are always punishments in those for failure to follow. THAT sir, is a threat. Do this or else. Pure and simply. If you or I do it, is assault.

Just because it is a law, you are not morally bound to follow it. Do not confuse morality and legality.
If 51% of the people may vote for it, does not legitimize it. In the end it is the violence of the state that will enforce it. Just because it is legal (a law) does not make it right. The term for it is "tyranny of the majority" -(i.e. Democracy). That is why the Founding Fathers wanted a Republic. It is not the perfect government, but it protected minorities as well as any form of government could.
Realize that over time, Jim Crow laws were legal.
Slavery was legal.
Setting your slaves free was illegal.
Helping runaway slaves was illegal.
It was legal to shoot 7 or more indians going across the Missouri River from west to east.
It was legal to assault and steal from Jewish people in Germany pre-WW2.
It was legal for a man to end his wife's life for "displeasing him" at one time in Alabama.
Gay people were prevented the luxury of being joined in a civil union.
etc... etc....

There are hundreds if not thousands of illegal laws (still) on the books. Only a few ever get overturned.

However, I digress.
Coercion and violence is how the state gets you to play by their rules. It is why the Constitution LIMITED the authority of the Federal Government and thus applied to all others via the 14th Amendment, which reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Too bad our own government does not follow the rules that created the government.... THAT is a violation of their end of Social Contract.
....
Just being born somewhere does NOT make you required to obey. If so, the country would be a CAST system. You would be bound by the rules of your fathers and you would probably be in the same trade. Additionally, any debts incurred by your parents could be passed down to you. You are not responsible for the previous generations failures - Legality is based on action by an individual not based on what happened before you.

I'm not confusing legality with morality. I haven't even talked about morality. I can if you want to, but it's not part of the topic here. And you spent a lot of time talking about how laws can be unjust. Which is not something I ever disagreed with. You've put a lot of words in my mouth that I never said.

So, as I've already said, not all laws are just and if the laws are unjust then you have a right to revolution. Or, you could choose to address those issues through the Court system. Up to you. But, if you want to argue that all laws and rules are "coercion", I won't argue with you, but people will rule by "coercion" in the state of nature as well. The difference is that with the social contract, you can choose to be ruled by that government or not. Is it really coercion if you can choose to live someplace else? Essentially, you consent to be governed by those laws by not choosing to live someplace else. If you want to call that "coercion" fine, but I don't think it's what most people mean when they say "coercion" despite what the venable dictionary.com or other online dictionaries say it mean.

Beyond that, the State of Nature is ruled by "coercion." The difference is that in the Social Contract, although some of the laws are unjust and enforced by "coercion", you also have mechanisms to protect your natural rights in the form of the Court System, the Constitution, and democratic rule in the case of the United States. You have no such protection of your rights in the State of Nature. It is purely rule by force and laws/rules will be enforced by whoever carries the biggest stick with no check on that power.

So, "coercion" is an inevitable feature of both government and no government. But, at least if you have a government/social contract, there are mechanisms to protect your individual rights, although they will not be perfect and won't always work. So, some, and possibly most laws, are just in a social contract where as "justice" is simply a question of who has the most firepower in the state of nature. If you think that's just or justice, then I really don't think there is anything further to discuss.

 

[St. Widge]

Kids very definitely aren't forced to do it. If you've ever been in a high school "on level" classroom, you would see that's the case very quickly. They try their hardest to convince the kids that they have to do it, but the administration and the teachers are well aware they can't force the kids to try to pass their classes (and a lot of those kids know it, too, so they don't bother trying because they fully intend to drop out as soon as they turn 18 anyway).

I force my kid to study and do well in her classes. And teachers try to do it by using bad grades and punishments. So, by the definition above, that's coercion whether they are successful or not is not relevant to whether or not it is coercion.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

What an interesting question. Are we assuming there is or isn't a government to enforce property rights?

I think that has to be embedded in the question

 

[superchuck500]

What an interesting question. Are we assuming there is or isn't a government to enforce property rights?

In space, as on land, property rights depend on which party has the bigger gun.

 

[xardoz]

So, "coercion" is an inevitable feature of both government and no government. But, at least if you have a government/social contract, there are mechanisms to protect your individual rights, although they will not be perfect and won't always work. So, some, and possibly most laws, are just in a social contract where as "justice" is simply a question of who has the most firepower in the state of nature. If you think that's just or justice, then I really don't think there is anything further to discuss.

Yes, but if you want a just government, you need to LIMIT the coercion to try and increase the "just-ness" of the society.

(Not pointing fingers to anyone on this site) Overall, I am amazed at how so many people want to CONTROL others, steal their assets without the conjoles to do it themselves, so they have to do it via the state.

 

[ChrisinNOLA]

Some interesting facts about juries in this segment