Just beat Jury Service!! Yayyy!!!

[SueEllen]

Panaroma on at the moment is interesting.

You can pay an "independent" expert witness to say what you like and give you indications for your defence.

[Gym beast]

Why do you think you are smart? What clever thing have you done?

You just come across as a spoilt, self-centred individual. Even your username sends out a negative image.

And you come across as a whiny little b1tch all worried about what everyone thinks of her. "Negative image"? Silly cow.

[SpontaneousOrder]

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

It should be easy for you to find the quote then.

[speling bee]

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.

That's all very well in the nice voluntaryist society, but you have a complaint about this society which is:

1. Compulsion under threat of violence (arrest) to participate in a jury is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty (I paraphrase, but I hope fairly).

Which of the following statements do you agree with:

2. Compulsion under threat of violence to attend court as a witness to a murder is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
3. Compulsion under threat of violence not to take money from a murderer in exchange for not giving evidence as a witness is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
4. Compulsion under threat of violence not to demand money from a murderer in exchange for not giving evidence as a witness is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
5. Compulsion under threat of violence not to demand money from an adulterer in exchange for not giving telling his wife about his adultery is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
6. Compulsion under threat of violence to attend court as a suspect in a murder case is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
6. Compulsion under threat of violence to serve a prison sentence as a convicted murderer is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.

[SpontaneousOrder]

That's all very well in the nice voluntaryist society, but you have a complaint about this society which is:

1. Compulsion under threat of violence (arrest) to participate in a jury is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty (I paraphrase, but I hope fairly).

Which of the following statements do you agree with:

2. Compulsion under threat of violence to attend court as a witness to a murder is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
3. Compulsion under threat of violence not to take money from a murderer in exchange for not giving evidence as a witness is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
4. Compulsion under threat of violence not to demand money from a murderer in exchange for not giving evidence as a witness is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
5. Compulsion under threat of violence not to demand money from an adulterer in exchange for not giving telling his wife about his adultery is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
6. Compulsion under threat of violence to attend court as a suspect in a murder case is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
6. Compulsion under threat of violence to serve a prison sentence as a convicted murderer is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.

The initiation of force (violence, threats of, or fraud) is always unacceptable.

So number 6, for example, doesn't even matter - I've no choice whether I get carted away or not. In a just society my captors would be certain that I was indeed guilty and had initiated the use of force by murdering someone. If I murdered someone then what I think isn't what's important.

[speling bee]

The initiation of force (violence, threats of, or fraud) is always unacceptable.

So you won't take action against me camping in your garden. Ta very much.

[SpontaneousOrder]

So you won't take action against me camping in your garden. Ta very much.

That would be a violation of my property rights, and therefore an initiation of force. Property rights are essential to human existence, and ultimately all initiation of force is a derivation of some violation of property rights.

[SpontaneousOrder]

That's all very well in the nice voluntaryist society, but you have a complaint about this society which is:

1. Compulsion under threat of violence (arrest) to participate in a jury is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty (I paraphrase, but I hope fairly).

Which of the following statements do you agree with:

2. Compulsion under threat of violence to attend court as a witness to a murder is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
3. Compulsion under threat of violence not to take money from a murderer in exchange for not giving evidence as a witness is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
4. Compulsion under threat of violence not to demand money from a murderer in exchange for not giving evidence as a witness is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
5. Compulsion under threat of violence not to demand money from an adulterer in exchange for not giving telling his wife about his adultery is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
6. Compulsion under threat of violence to attend court as a suspect in a murder case is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.
6. Compulsion under threat of violence to serve a prison sentence as a convicted murderer is an intolerable assertion of state power against your liberty.

Numbers 3 & 4 would be worth consideration to see if it construed conspiracy to murder. I've not given it much thought before so I don't know what the answer would be.

[speling bee]

That would be a violation of my property rights, and therefore an initiation of force. Property rights are essential to human existence, and ultimately all initiation of force is a derivation of some violation of property rights.

It is not an initiation of force. I simply camp in your front garden. No violence. No force. To say otherwise is to misuse language.

And you may not initiate violence to evict me because that is always wrong.

[original PM]

Wll in this case of being a witness to a murder - the enlightened citizen would attend court and testify as to what they have seen as they would understand the need to keep the lerager society free from persons of this nature.

There is no other course of action.

If you would even consider perverting the course of justice by not testifying you really are still underachieivng in your quest for humanity.

If you would actual take money for perverting the course of justice - in essence you are then placing a monetary value on a human life which really means you are still quite uncivillised.