For my Libertarian friends - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: November 12 2010 at 15:35

Tony R wrote:

and America never did become a fascist theocracy, did it? Wink

It's fascist. The Theocracy part is a stretch though.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: November 12 2010 at 15:38

The T wrote:

Do you libertarians agree with jury "discrimination" (selection)? Certainly that's one occassion when you can't oppose laws and judges forcing people to have representative juries with minorities represented. Or do you really think a black man who is suspect of harming a white person will be judged totally fairly by a group of elderly white men as was in the past?

Not really. You're making the assumption that people are racist. The man should have a jury of his peers, whatever that may constitute. Personally if I was put on trial I'd be more comfortable with a jury of black people who grew up in the streets of Philly with me than some dudes who have the same skin color as me. Peers constitutes many things besides skin color.

Really I'd prefer a private jury system. Surprise Surprise.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: November 12 2010 at 16:21

I would totally buy stock in Jury Selection Inc.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: November 12 2010 at 18:34

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

How would that work? Confused

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: November 12 2010 at 19:09

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Not really. You're making the assumption that people are racist.

It is my sad duty to inform you that some people are. Also, they are not smart. Wink

In fact many of us are dumb all over and a little ugly on the side.

Edited by Slartibartfast - November 12 2010 at 19:12

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: November 13 2010 at 12:10

Slartibartfast wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Not really. You're making the assumption that people are racist.

It is my sad duty to inform you that some people are. Also, they are not smart. Wink

In fact many of us are dumb all over and a little ugly on the side.

Some people are, but that wouldn't be a problem if the jury system wasn't so broken. If you show the slightest hint of any intelligence, knowledge of the law, or ability to think rationally and for yourself, both the prosecution and defense have no interest in having you on a jury. Both sides allow only weak minded, malleable people to serve. Racism of course is a sure sign of a weak mind, and jury selectors gobble this up.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: November 13 2010 at 12:10

The T wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

How would that work? Confused

Well it wouldn't work in a legal system run exclusively by the government.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: November 13 2010 at 22:45

Private Jury System?

I am honestly intrigued. How would that work in Patland?

Finnforest View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913

Posted: November 13 2010 at 23:13

Pat, what do you make of this war brewing between Demint and Inhofe. Both pretty conservative as far as I can tell. Demint calling for a ban of earmarks. Inhofe saying this is a crucial mistake, and that conservatives will not be reducing spending by doing this, but rather ceding their oversight/control of spending to the executive branch. He claims the right doesn't realize the practical effect an "earmark ban" will have and basically said they're being duped into something that will be more about political points than cutting spending. He said in the long term it will be just a shift of power to whomever resides in the WH.

Any thoughts on this one?

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: November 13 2010 at 23:20

I'm still torn on how I feel about earmarks.

In my gut I want to say it's a waste of taxpayer money, (which it is) but can also be used as a way to bring in money for your district. Of course it should ideally be used to do something and not line the Representatives pockets...

thellama73 View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368

Posted: November 14 2010 at 09:12

I think earmarks should be cut way back, but we should really be focusing on bigger spending issues. I recently had a homework assignment that required me to go through the entire 2008 federal budget. I saw half a trillion dollars in spending that I would cut in a heartbeat. $4 billion on forestry service? Really?

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: November 14 2010 at 11:50

JJLehto wrote:

Private Jury System?

I am honestly intrigued. How would that work in Patland?

Well private jury systems would work fine. The bigger issue would be how well would the private legal system that they require function? I'm not so sure on the second question.

Given that we assume such a system is feasible though, it seems plain that companies which offer juries on a private market would be ideal. Those juries known for their impartiality would be favored by clients and arbiters. You could actually have a trial instead of two people pulling the heart strings of a brain dead jury without any reference of law.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: November 14 2010 at 11:53

Finnforest wrote:

Pat, what do you make of this war brewing between Demint and Inhofe. Both pretty conservative as far as I can tell. Demint calling for a ban of earmarks. Inhofe saying this is a crucial mistake, and that conservatives will not be reducing spending by doing this, but rather ceding their oversight/control of spending to the executive branch. He claims the right doesn't realize the practical effect an "earmark ban" will have and basically said they're being duped into something that will be more about political points than cutting spending. He said in the long term it will be just a shift of power to whomever resides in the WH.

Any thoughts on this one?

I basically agree with Inhofe. Ron Paul has been making this point for a long time. Reducing earmarks does not reduce spending. It just forces a shift in who is able to allocate that spending. If the money is going to be spent, I see no problem with Congressmen fighting to have it spent in their district. The whole earmarks issue is just a smoke screen. Those pushing it want to get the brownie points for appearing to cut the budget, without having to actually cut anything at all. It's just another way in which Congress would be ceding its powers to the Executive.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169

Posted: November 14 2010 at 12:02

No one is serious about eliminating the deficit - at best, they'll make a small dent in it and claim progress. It's because the biggest cost drivers are considered sacrosanct by one or both parties.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: November 14 2010 at 12:22

Yeah Pat, a for-profit justice system... Excellent idea. Even you should see the insanity behind it ...

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: November 14 2010 at 13:20

The T wrote:

Yeah Pat, a for-profit justice system... Excellent idea. Even you should see the insanity behind it ...

We already have a for profit incarceration system. Their incentive is to lock up as many as possible. Just like health care, when run for profit you get screwed. Some things work well run for profit, some things do not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/17392/

Edited by Slartibartfast - November 14 2010 at 13:21

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: November 14 2010 at 14:23

The T wrote:

Yeah Pat, a for-profit justice system... Excellent idea. Even you should see the insanity behind it ...

Yeah T a monopolistic justice system, a system where the people accusing you of crimes are the same people running your trial, that seems insane too.

I'm not saying I can buy the idea fully, but it's not like our justice system makes much sense itself.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: November 14 2010 at 14:23

Slartibartfast wrote:

The T wrote:

Yeah Pat, a for-profit justice system... Excellent idea. Even you should see the insanity behind it ...

We already have a for profit incarceration system. Their incentive is to lock up as many as possible. Just like anything, a for profit system is most efficient.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Henry Plainview View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715

Posted: November 14 2010 at 20:51

thellama73 wrote:

I think earmarks should be cut way back, but we should really be focusing on bigger spending issues. I recently had a homework assignment that required me to go through the entire 2008 federal budget. I saw half a trillion dollars in spending that I would cut in a heartbeat. $4 billion on forestry service? Really?

f**k you, forests are awesome! As a Sleepytime Gorilla Museum fan you should realize that. :|

I will, however, give you TSA's entire 8 billion dollar budget, and most of the rest of Homeland Security. But, of course, that would probably piss people off even more than burning down all the forests like you want to.

if you own a sodastream i hate you

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: November 14 2010 at 20:58

Ted Kaczynski wouldn't appreciate the government doing that, ergo a Sleepytime Museum fan would no either.

But yeah f**k the TSA.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "