Just beat Jury Service!! Yayyy!!!

[BrilloPad]

Even if the accused was an ex wife?

Depends on the quality of BJ she gives.

Here's a question for our resident libertarians.

If you witness a murder or another very serious crime, should the courts be able to compel your attendance under threat of violence (arrest) to give testimony.

By serious crime, you mean like neglecting to declare £1 of interest on your tax return?

Anyway - the answer is no - unless the murder is against my family.

HTH

[speling bee]

Depends on the quality of BJ she gives.



By serious crime, you mean like neglecting to declare £1 of interest on your tax return?

Anyway - the answer is no - unless the murder is against my family.

HTH

So if the murder is against your family (and assuming you're not the murderer ), you don't think the witness should be compelled to give evidence against the murderer?

[BrilloPad]

So if the murder is against your family (and assuming you're not the murderer ), you don't think the witness should be compelled to give evidence against the murderer?

I mean exactly what I posted.

And interesting you equate violence with arrest - quite right.

[speling bee]

I mean exactly what I posted.

And interesting you equate violence with arrest - quite right.

If it should be legal to decline to turn up to court because you prefer not to, should it also be legal to decline to turn up to court if the murderer pays you £10,000?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Here's a question for our resident libertarians.

If you witness a murder or another very serious crime, should the courts be able to compel your attendance under threat of violence (arrest) to give testimony.

'Libertarian' is a VERY broad term. But there would generally be no need to force someone's attendance. Especially as they don't have to tell the truth even if they do attend.

Imagine an already established voluntaryist society. Someone who witnessed such a crime and declined to attend court would almost certainly be seen as a bad egg, and would be 'punished' for his behaviour through social ostracism. Whether we like it or not technology isn't going to stand still, and it's not huge leap to imagine that such a person would be black-listed as a bad-egg. I imagine that there would be organisations that facilitate and arbitrate such black listings.

We currently have things like pub-watch to try to stop known thugs from being served in pubs that participate in the scheme. I would imagine that life would be so miserable for someone who was refused service in their local grocers, pub, post-office etc. Perhaps they'll even find it hard to get a job.

There are lots of ways of motivating and dissuading people that don't rely on force. The 'fair trade' organisation has some success in influencing people's purchasing habits (not that I'm a fan of that particular scheme). Imagine a fair trade scheme that 99% of people strongly believed in - anyone who didn't buy only fair-trade certified products would be a social leper.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You have done many times over the months. Everybody knows it, I'm not sure why to see any benefit pretending otherwise. You're obsessed with the subject of law being underwritten by [threat of] violence.

I challenge you to find a SINGLE quote where I suggest that people are only motivated by threats of violence. A SINGLE quote. If what you say is true it should be easy.

You WILL find a lot of posts where I claim that free market solutions offer a better alternative to violence.

You sound like a dirty politician, twisting words and telling outright lies. All you have to do to show that you aren't an utter cretin is to produce a single quote.

[speling bee]

'Libertarian' is a VERY broad term. But there would generally be no need to force someone's attendance. Especially as they don't have to tell the truth even if they do attend.

Imagine an already established voluntaryist society. Someone who witnessed such a crime and declined to attend court would almost certainly be seen as a bad egg, and would be 'punished' for his behaviour through social ostracism. Whether we like it or not technology isn't going to stand still, and it's not huge leap to imagine that such a person would be black-listed as a bad-egg. I imagine that there would be organisations that facilitate and arbitrate such black listings.

We currently have things like pub-watch to try to stop known thugs from being served in pubs that participate in the scheme. I would imagine that life would be so miserable for someone who was refused service in their local grocers, pub, post-office etc. Perhaps they'll even find it hard to get a job.

There are lots of ways of motivating and dissuading people that don't rely on force. The 'fair trade' organisation has some success in influencing people's purchasing habits (not that I'm a fan of that particular scheme). Imagine a fair trade scheme that 99% of people strongly believed in - anyone who didn't buy only fair-trade certified products would be a social leper.

In an established voluntarist society, if a murder witnesses offered 1000 oz of gold by the perpetrator not to testify, and the witness values that gold more highly than the social ostracsim, is there nothing to stop the witness from taking the money and keeping quiet?

[SpontaneousOrder]

A jury may return a perverse verdict, so if on a jury encourage that if it works for you. I think this is the weaker part of your argument...

If this is something that one could do, at a personal level at least, without fear of reprisal then there certainly may be some merit in considering it. Of course I'd still be attending under compulsion, but if it provided an opportunity to prevent an injustice (for example the drugs possession scenario we talked about) then that side of it becomes less important.

Perhaps a solution (if it really is intolerable) would be that an individual may at any time (before being called for jury service!) opt out of jury service, and in return lose their right to trial by jury and instead be tried by a judge only.

Well I can't see the future to know which solution would emerge to be considered the best. What I do know is that two wrongs can never ever make a right, just like people knew (to borrow someone else's example) that slaves should be freed despite having no way to know what alternative method of picking the cotton would emerge afterwards.

I suspect that it wouldn't come to that (in an established voluntaryist society - like I always say, demolishing all the churches won't turn everyone into atheists).

ignoring the whole 'just laws vs bogus laws' side of things for now, I would expect to pay for my rights to be protected, and I dare say that cost may also cover the cost courts etc, etc.

I would guess that everyone would be covered in the most basic sense - it's in my interest to catch a robber in the neighbourhood even if he's currently only robbing other people - with people who pay higher sums for their security subsidizing those who pay less for a more basic package (just like top-end iPad buyers subsidize the ones buying the low-end ones - e.g. when they pay £200 extra for a few gig of extra memory).

Perhaps if I volunteer to serve in the jury for so many days of the year, then my fees are reduced proportionately.
Perhaps when service is voluntary people will see it as a mark of virtue in the pursuit voluntaryism, and volunteer days for free.
Commerce relies very heavily on law & order - perhaps shops will offer token discounts on prices to people who commit to so many days per year.

That's the beauty of the free market; I don't know what is the optimal solution - no one does. But the market will know, because the relative desires and priorities of millions of people are all represented in price movements.

[SpontaneousOrder]

In an established voluntarist society, if a murder witnesses offered 1000 oz of gold by the perpetrator not to testify, and the witness values that gold more highly than the social ostracsim, is there nothing to stop the witness from taking the money and keeping quiet?

In our current system is there anything stopping the same bribe being made to tell lies in court? The difference is that currently if they got away with it they could enjoy all the benefits of spending that money.

I'm assuming that you're supposing that the bribe is more likely because it's not illegal?
If you were known to have accepted such a bribe then not only would you be known to be not helping with solving a murder, but you'd now be considered complicit along with the perpetrator who now looks VERY guilty, despite not having attended court yet.

What good is all that gold when you can't buy a house. Or you can't get a gas supply, or water supply, or electricity to your house. You can't get a permit to drive on the roads and you can't get a job. You can't even buy food from the shops because no one would dare risk being caught selling you food, which would ruin their business over night.

What good is all that gold now? There's no force being used here to discourage such behaviour - just people deciding whether or not they want to trade with you. One man alone, without other ment o trade with, will live like an animal.

[d000hg]

I challenge you to find a SINGLE quote where I suggest that people are only motivated by threats of violence. A SINGLE quote. If what you say is true it should be easy.

In this very thread you're repeated your mantra that people only follow the law because of threat of violence if they don't.