- Mar 14, 2002
- Reaction score
- 4th Ward Soldier
It is voluntary and even if it's not all voluntary doesn't mean that they rule by coercion when the vast majority of our lives and what they do is voluntary. In the vast majority of cases all the laws say is that your liberty extends to the point that you would harm someone else and no serious libertarian or Libertarian would disagree with that. Although I guess all Anarchists would.Most libertarians I know steer clear of calling themselves big "L" Libertarians. That is more a designation of the Libertarian party. Small "l" libertarians are very diverse and they love to fight each other more than anything in the world. Anarchists also like to fight each other as they too are a diverse group (An-caps to An-coms).
Government absolutely rules by coercion. I am not sure how anyone can say otherwise. Its not all voluntary right?
I also think you know that drafters of the Constitution would not understand how our current federal government has 20% of the power that it does if the Constitution really did restrain the government. If there is a social contract, then the Constitution would have to mean something and not just ignored most of the time or have judges change the meaning without legislation or amendment.
Jury nullification for federal crimes would come into play if someone is charged with a crime and it is not evident the Constitution ever gave the feds the power to regulate whatever the crime was about.
And, when I use Libertarian with a big "L", I use it to differentiate between the general idea that freedom is good and classical liberal philosophy from guys like Locke and Mill because the word "liberal" has lost its original meaning due to politics. Of course, the phase Libertarian has also lost it's true meaning because of politics too.
I mean, nobody is stopping anyone from leaving and they aren't really forcing anyone to do much of anything. I live a really free life and am free to say or do pretty much so anything I want without government intrusion as long as I don't harm others in the process. That being said, I think there are things that should be legal that are not legal and there are laws I don't agree with, drugs being the largest example, but there are ways to change those laws and those things are starting to happen. And the alternative is to just let people individually decide which laws to follow and which laws not to follow. That seems great in theory, but the truth is that isn't going to work in practice.
I agree that the government has gone far past the powers granted to it in the Constitution, but I don't think it is even close to the point of coercion. And, like I said, there are mechanism to change all of those things.
I mean, I guess you could argue that the concept of Judicial Review by SCOTUS as created in Marbury v. Madison is wrong and every single citizen has the right to determine and enforce what is or isn't Constitutional, but I don't think you could make a very good argument for that given the Federalist Papers. And, I don't think it works for a practical point of view.
In the end, I get the attraction of jury nullification for laws that seem unjust, but I think the down side of it is far too great. It's all fine and good when we use it to stop people from going to jail for smoking weed, but what happens if a jury decides to let a child molester or rapist go because that's a moral judgment and shouldn't be an issue for criminal law?
Finally, people make these claims about Judges "making the law" all the time, but I think that is usually because they don't really understand the process or how law works. All laws require some level of interpretation out of necessity so you have to look at the intent of the drafter. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. Beyond that, outside of Louisiana which is a Civil Law state (and some exceptions for particular areas of law like Family Law in other states), the Common Law is the law of the land. And, the Common Law is based on precedent, but the Judges don't make the law so much as they are forced to interpret it when it's unclear. And they interpret it in the light of what was intended by those who wrote the law.