Is Jury Duty a Form of Slavery?

[orion]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

Maybe the libertarianism in your head exists only there and nowhere else?

Heh. How is that different than anyone’s version of “libertarianism”, including yours?

[/quote]

Well because human language only works if they have words to mean roughly the same to at least a larger group of people. Your definition of libertarianism is so far out there, I suggest you give it another name.

The libertarianism I know is very clear and critical when it comes to the issue of socialized systems which crowd out private systems organized by the people themselves and the moral consequences and changes in perspective that change brings with it.

The more you make participation mandatory, the more you organize it at gunpoint, the less people will organize themselves and develop a sense of responsibility and civic duty.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]orion wrote:

No, really if you go the libertarianism has never been tried and how come that is so route, you also have to admit that it hardly had the chance to fail.[/quote]

Ooh, the communism argument - I can barely distinguish between the utopian ideologues of communism and anarcho-libertarianism any more.

There is a reason it hasn’t been given the chance to fail - free people choose to not adopt your version of libertarianism, just as free people reject communistic principles.

Also, GDollars wrote what he wrote in the context of forced jury duty and that is forced collectivism.

Of course it is not - and you, in your insistence to equate a public duty that secures a legal right to “forced collectivism”, have made his point for him.

It’s an interesting dilemma for you - the more you write and advocate your libertarianism, the less people are persuaded to actually adopt it in the real world. That is an important lesson.

[Sloth]

Orion, I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you’d advocate free market judicial systems of some sort.

[orion]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

No, really if you go the libertarianism has never been tried and how come that is so route, you also have to admit that it hardly had the chance to fail.

Ooh, the communism argument - I can barely distinguish between the utopian ideologues of communism and anarcho-libertarianism any more.

There is a reason it hasn’t been given the chance to fail - free people choose to not adopt your version of libertarianism, just as free people reject communistic principles.

[/quote]

Also nonsense, and contradictory nonsense at that.

I never claimed that it has never been tried, you do. Well then it can never have failed either.

I say it has been tried and was a smashing success in Athens, Venice, Hong Kong, England and once upon a time in the US of A.

So a lack of consistency on your part and no similarity to communist utopians on mine.

Also, GDollars wrote what he wrote in the context of forced jury duty and that is forced collectivism.

Of course it is not - and you, in your insistence to equate a public duty that secures a legal right to “forced collectivism”, have made his point for him.

It’s an interesting dilemma for you - the more you write and advocate your libertarianism, the less people are persuaded to actually adopt it in the real world. That is an important lesson.

I do not see how that has made any point for him.

I also do not care if anyone is convinced by what I write or not. Free societies where people served their communities on their own have always prospered, societies that needed to force people to pay their taxes, defend their country and probably also to serve on a jury have always failed.

The very idea that to have someone on a jury that does not want to be there at all will somehow benefit the outcome of a fair trial is blatantly absurd.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]orion wrote:

Well because human language only works if they have words to mean roughly the same to at least a larger group of people. Your definition of libertarianism is so far out there, I suggest you give it another name.[/quote]

No, you and I have the exact same definition of the term - that is the entire problem. Even as you define “libertarianism”, in which I completely agree, it is as short-sighted and utopian as communism.

The libertarianism I know is very clear and critical when it comes to the issue of socialized systems which crowd out private systems organized by the people themselves and the moral consequences and changes in perspective that change brings with it.

The libertarianism you know - and I know - falls flat precisely for the reasons you list: it is critical of human institutions that humans have relied on and assigned power over purely private/individualist systems since humans have been organizing. Humans have never, ever wanted purely private systems in place to handle all of society’s affairs, just as humans have not preferred the state to crowd out all private decisions.

Communism fails because it won’t serve Human Nature and what humans actually want and prioritize. Your version of anarcho-libertarianism fails for the exact same reason.

Humans do not want to part with family, church, law, and moral approbation - because in addition to liberty, they yearn for some sense of order and security. The key is understanding that Human Nature requires both - not one extreme or the other.

The more you make participation mandatory, the more you organize it at gunpoint, the less people will organize themselves and develop a sense of responsibility and civic duty.

I don’t reject the idea that government can crowd out too much private activity and thus harm both private and public virtue - but this is precisely the problem: your utopian anarcho-libertarianism goes entirely too far to be rational for Human Nature, and that is why your libertarianism never ventures outside of a chat room or a faculty lounge.

Libertarianism as you posit, with all of its ideological purity, is exactly like communism - it can only be imposed by force. No one wants it, no one likes it, no one likes the end result of where it leads.

And back to the point - the argument about jury duty being “slavery” is precisely why people keep rejecting the argument for libertarianism.

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you’d advocate free market judicial systems of some sort.[/quote]

No, not really. I am drawing the line at anarcho-capitalism.

I think at least criminal law is a core function of the state.

I have however made very good experiences with “private courts” that settle international and national trade disputes.

Compared to normal courts and cases that involve international trade they are lightning fast and, give the legal framework, their findings are binding and enforceable.

I do not see why such courts should not be used more often and not just between companies.

[Beowolf]

…Only you guys could turn a thread about jury duty into an epic battle over libertarianism.

[Sloth]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…Only you guys could turn a thread about jury duty into an epic battle over libertarianism. [/quote]

Wait until I advocate trial by clerical inquisition. Then, you’ll see a real debate!

[orion]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

Well because human language only works if they have words to mean roughly the same to at least a larger group of people. Your definition of libertarianism is so far out there, I suggest you give it another name.

No, you and I have the exact same definition of the term - that is the entire problem. Even as you define “libertarianism”, in which I completely agree, it is as short-sighted and utopian as communism.
[/quote]

Since everything you write below shows you have not even remotely the same idea of libertarianism as me this is also nonsense.

The libertarianism I know is very clear and critical when it comes to the issue of socialized systems which crowd out private systems organized by the people themselves and the moral consequences and changes in perspective that change brings with it.

The libertarianism you know - and I know - falls flat precisely for the reasons you list: it is critical of human institutions that humans have relied on and assigned power over purely private/individualist systems since humans have been organizing. Humans have never, ever wanted purely private systems in place to handle all of society’s affairs, just as humans have not preferred the state to crowd out all private decisions.

Most libertarians are minarchists thats want the state reduced to its primary functions of protecting us from violence from inner or outer aggressors.

A little more than 150-200 years ago people simply could not and did not envision public programs such as ours, in fact they regularly staged tax revolts at a state part of the GDP of less than 10%.

So, the massive public spending on health, education and massive subsidies were not even on their radar.

Communism fails because it won’t serve Human Nature and what humans actually want and prioritize. Your version of anarcho-libertarianism fails for the exact same reason.

Humans do not want to part with family, church, law, and moral approbation - because in addition to liberty, they yearn for some sense of order and security. The key is understanding that Human Nature requires both - not one extreme or the other.

As I wrote before it is one of the main points of libertarian critique of the welfare state that it undermines family, church, law and moral standards so what the hell are you talking about.

The more you make participation mandatory, the more you organize it at gunpoint, the less people will organize themselves and develop a sense of responsibility and civic duty.

I don’t reject the idea that government can crowd out too much private activity and thus harm both private and public virtue - but this is precisely the problem: your utopian anarcho-libertarianism goes entirely too far to be rational for Human Nature, and that is why your libertarianism never ventures outside of a chat room or a faculty lounge.

That is interesting that people should and could organize themselves in whatever manner they please is somehow utopian though they have done so before the first government existed.

I am also not an anarcho-capitalist, most aren´t.

[quote]
Libertarianism as you posit, with all of its ideological purity, is exactly like communism - it can only be imposed by force. No one wants it, no one likes it, no one likes the end result of where it leads.

And back to the point - the argument about jury duty being “slavery” is precisely why people keep rejecting the argument for libertarianism. [/quote]

I´d be willing to call it servitude.

[Mikeyali]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well stated, Boston.

And while the judge is this case was pretty aggressive, I suspect it had to do with the fact that far too many folks were treating “jury duty” as a “jury option” - and work couldn’t get done. If this approach rankles citizens, at a minimum it will shine a light on the problem and they can seek a different solution. But it’s clear there is some kind of problem.[/quote]

Funny, I put forth two free market solutions to the problem that you ignored because you were offended by the premise. For the record I should add, I don’t consider myself a libertarian, but rather a Goldwater Republican, for what it’s worth. I suppose to many that makes me a Libertarian.[quote]

If you can’t get enough warm bodies to seat a jury, the right to a jury trial doesn’t mean much.[/quote]

Indeed, so howsabout we find a non-coercive way to fill jury seats? You seem to desire a coercive solution and mask it by calling it a duty rather than attempt to consider free-market ones. You still haven’t told me how we dictate what is and is not a duty. We also have a right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean that if all the guns were gone the government could draft gunsmiths to put weapons back in our hands?

And I agree - this isn’t slavery, not by a mile. Not ever duty owed to the public is “slavery”, and to be frank, we’ve diminished the real evil of slavery by invoking the comparison so often and so carelessly.

Mikeyali - perhaps you should try real slavery and report back. Maybe then you won’t be so cavalier to think everything you don’t feel like doing is “slavery”.

Cute. I can see you now going back and telling Sally Hemmings that she wasn’t a slave. I mean, she never had to work that hard. She got to travel to France and wear nice clothes. She wasn’t a slave and if she thought she was, perhaps TJ should have sent her off somewhere where she can taste the whip. Then she’d know what a slave was.

By this low threshold, my “freedom” to drive anywhere on the road at any speed I want is a form of “slavery”. My duties to take care of my child is a form of “slavery”. Nonsense.

You lost me on the driving thing, but it seems you were just being difficult. Re: kids, you freely put yourself in a situation. Thus you have a duty, just like signing a contract.

[quote]
And impressment into the British navy seems an odd comparison - being forced to leave your country against your will and serve a foreign sovereign smells a lot more like slavery than the “price” of participating in an legal system that buys you a right to enjoy the same privileges of the system (a jury trial).[/quote]

Not really. I’m talking about colonists being impressed into the mother country. They were paid, fed, ect. Yet it was still a form of slavery. No you not see it as slavery?

I’d like to continue this thread, but I’ve got to get my cold ass to the range.

mike

[orion]

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

Cute. I can see you now going back and telling Sally Hemmings that she wasn’t a slave. I mean, she never had to work that hard. She got to travel to France and wear nice clothes. She wasn’t a slave and if she thought she was, perhaps TJ should have sent her off somewhere where she can taste the whip. Then she’d know what a slave was.

…

Not really. I’m talking about colonists being impressed into the mother country. They were paid, fed, ect. Yet it was still a form of slavery. No you not see it as slavery?

I’d like to continue this thread, but I’ve got to get my cold ass to the range.

mike[/quote]

Wait, are you appealing to an abstract idea here, unique to Western civilization and the battle cry of free men at Salamis?

Could eleutheria mean more than a comfortable cage?

Is it possible that if someone can unjustly take a little bit of your property or freedom he could as well take it all?

Hogwash I say, row servant, because Xerxes eyes rest upon you.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]orion wrote:

Also nonsense, and contradictory nonsense at that.

I never claimed that it has never been tried, you do. Well then it can never have failed either.

I say it has been tried and was a smashing success in Athens, Venice, Hong Kong, England and once upon a time in the US of A.[/quote]

Historically inaccurate, particularly with regards to the US. The US has never been a libertarian society as you describe it. In fact, we have fewer “morals legislation” now than at any time in our history, and “morals legislation” is the antithesis of libertarianism as you describe it.

So a lack of consistency on your part and no similarity to communist utopians on mine.

Well, no - your version of libertarianism has no historical predicate (certainly not Athens), and your insistence on a utopia that is defied by a most basic understanding of human nature is an ideological mirror of communists.

I do not see how that has made any point for him.

Not surprising.

I also do not care if anyone is convinced by what I write or not.

Self-evident.

The very idea that to have someone on a jury that does not want to be there at all will somehow benefit the outcome of a fair trial is blatantly absurd.

Justice should be impartial, and impartially measured. If you have a jury system whereby the measures of justice are voluntary - possibly interest - parties, you’re inviting the worst kind of justice.

Jurors who really, really want to be there could cause serious problems with the whole “fair trial” requirements - but in libertopia, no one would ever have a motive to be “partial”, so…well…it has that going for it.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

Funny, I put forth two free market solutions to the problem that you ignored because you were offended by the premise. For the record I should add, I don’t consider myself a libertarian, but rather a Goldwater Republican, for what it’s worth. I suppose to many that makes me a Libertarian.[/quote]

I have no idea what you call yourself - but I know that impartial justice requires an element of removing self-interest from service.

Indeed, so howsabout we find a non-coercive way to fill jury seats?

What is wrong with the local requirement of jury duty? You haven’t said - except for your juvenile equating it to “slavery”. Jury duty is a function of participating in a system that affords you the same fair trial rights. Without that detached participation, you run the risk of a form of justice few people would be interested in.

But, why not instead create solutions in search of problems?

You seem to desire a coercive solution and mask it by calling it a duty rather than attempt to consider free-market ones.

Every duty is coercive to a point. I don’t think a free-market approach is a good solution because I don’t think we get the best kind of impartial justice by trying to incentivize jury participation.

Further, guarantees of fair and speedy trials don’t mean much if you have a jury impaneled that is there for a reason other than to be a detached weigher of fact.

You still haven’t told me how we dictate what is and is not a duty.

Ooh - [raising hand] - by laws passed by people via their duly elected representatives?

What do I win?

We also have a right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean that if all the guns were gone the government could draft gunsmiths to put weapons back in our hands?

Stick to making sense. This is incoherent.

Cute. I can see you now going back and telling Sally Hemmings that she wasn’t a slave. I mean, she never had to work that hard. She got to travel to France and wear nice clothes. She wasn’t a slave and if she thought she was, perhaps TJ should have sent her off somewhere where she can taste the whip. Then she’d know what a slave was.

Nothing cute about it - you don’t seem to have an approach other than a histrionic freakout that “things I don’t want to do” equal being denied some very, very important liberty interest. Real slavery - true slavery - is no joke. Having to fulfill a duty is not slavery.

You lost me on the driving thing, but it seems you were just being difficult.

The state says I can’t drive anywhere I want at any speed I want. Slavery! What about my liberty interest in driving any way I damn well please? I have a duty to observe the “rules of the road” - damn totalitarians!

See my point?

Not really. I’m talking about colonists being impressed into the mother country. They were paid, fed, ect. Yet it was still a form of slavery. No you not see it as slavery?

Interesting - you have a link?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]orion wrote:

Since everything you write below shows you have not even remotely the same idea of libertarianism as me this is also nonsense.[/quote]

What is different? You never say. Maybe you just keep obfuscating to avoid the issue?

[quote]Most libertarians are minarchists thats want the state reduced to its primary functions of protecting us from violence from inner or outer aggressors.

A little more than 150-200 years ago people simply could not and did not envision public programs such as ours, in fact they regularly staged tax revolts at a state part of the GDP of less than 10%.[/quote]

So what? That’s not “libertarianism” as you have posited over and over. Dissatisfaction at the creation of and growth of the welfare state is not anything I have disagreed on. “Libertarianism” as you have posited has never existed, certainly not at the social level. Economically, it was closer - but never the doctrinaire ideology you claim.

So, the massive public spending on health, education and massive subsidies were not even on their radar.

That isn’t the issue - what is at issue is the libertarianism you have suggested: absolute freedom in all private spheres, where there has been no public duties, laws outlawing immoral behavior, and absolute laissez-faire in private economic transactions.

We certainly had less centralized and smaller governments, less regulation (economically, but not elsewhere necessarily), and less tax burden - but the governments that were closer and more local to the people were not libertarian, as you have described libertarianism. Far from it.

What you keep stumbling around is the concept of Federalism and localism - as in the central government has done more and more than ever expected (though that isn’t exactly right) - but libertarianism, as you have explained it, means absolute freedom at whatever level of government - national, state, or local. That certainly has never, ever been the case.

As I wrote before it is one of the main points of libertarian critique of the welfare state that it undermines family, church, law and moral standards so what the hell are you talking about.

It certainly does - but this is back to the Federalist issue. But government closer to the people has always gone the opposite way of “libertarianism” - mandating morals legislation and weird laws that restrict all kinds of freedoms.

You can’t seem to acknowledge the difference - there are two separate arguments: being a federalist on issues does not mean being a libertarian on issues. You said you are libertarian and that libertarian societies existed in the US: so where? What local government in the past afforded its citizens near-absolute social and economic freedoms? Stop fixating on the national government - a denial of liberty is a denial of liberty at any level if you’re getting in trouble all the same. So where was it?

Libertarianism means every level of government should get out of the business of restricting freedoms - so which one has?

That is interesting that people should and could organize themselves in whatever manner they please is somehow utopian though they have done so before the first government existed.

Yes, including organizing a larger state at the national level with more and more powers, if they so choose.

And you misstate the point - people organizing themselves any way they want isn’t utopian. What is utopian is thinking they would organize in the anarcho/minarchist libertarian mold - they won’t, and they haven’t, any more than they would organize by communist principles.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

…Only you guys could turn a thread about jury duty into an epic battle over libertarianism. [/quote]

I agree - it was more interesting when focused on the jury duty issue more narrowly.

[Beowolf]

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

I also do not care if anyone is convinced by what I write or not.

So then, why do you write?[/quote]

People have to do something in between jerk sessions, don’tcha know.

[nephorm]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

I also do not care if anyone is convinced by what I write or not.

So then, why do you write?

People have to do something in between jerk sessions, don’tcha know.[/quote]

Be fair. For some people, writing is their jerk session.

[orion]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

Also nonsense, and contradictory nonsense at that.

I never claimed that it has never been tried, you do. Well then it can never have failed either.

I say it has been tried and was a smashing success in Athens, Venice, Hong Kong, England and once upon a time in the US of A.

Historically inaccurate, particularly with regards to the US. The US has never been a libertarian society as you describe it. In fact, we have fewer “morals legislation” now than at any time in our history, and “morals legislation” is the antithesis of libertarianism as you describe it.
[/quote]

The “moral legislation” part is actually the less important part to most libertarians, the economic freedom is where its at.

That is why Maher thinks he is a libertarian when he is not.

I do not care what those fuckers legislate, as long as they lack the means to enforce it and as long as the economic power to live my life as I see fit remains in my hands.

Economically speaking the US was a libertarian utopia.

edit:

To answer you second post:

Federalism also brings a certain freedom to vote with your feet. People can make all kinds of crazy laws if I can just cross the next city or county border.

And again, freedom is first and foremost economic freedom.

[Varqanir]

Well, there is one way to solve the problem. Abolish the jury system and try all criminal cases by tribunal.

That would make everyone happy… except the criminals and their lawyers, of course.

I only partially jest.