PDA

View Full Version : "I like the idea of a voluntary jury" -Ron Paul




CaptainAmerica
04-30-2012, 01:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbw8rF_hA9I

at 4:45
Ron Paul the man said it himself that he prefers voluntary jury service not involuntary.

JebSanderson
04-30-2012, 02:05 PM
Do we really need another thread on this? Couldn't this have been posted in the 2 other jury duty threads you already started?

CaptainAmerica
04-30-2012, 02:26 PM
Do we really need another thread on this? Couldn't this have been posted in the 2 other jury duty threads you already started?

No

JebSanderson
04-30-2012, 02:30 PM
No

Needed another thread to whine in. I see.

ProIndividual
04-30-2012, 03:18 PM
In panarchy or anarchy, there would be professional jurors, just like professional judges...their reputation in the market would need to be maintained to keep their jobs, thereby assuring the highest (humanly) possible level of impartiality. They would be jointly hired by the defense, prosecution, and judge(s). Each company (the defendent's defense firm, the plaintiff's defense firm, and the arbitration firm) would have pre-arranged jurors or pre-arranged pools of jurors via a juror providing company in their arbitration agreements (in case they ended up in a dispute by way of their customers).

Sam I am
04-30-2012, 03:44 PM
I would be scared of a voluntary jury system, simply because it would be way to easy for an ambitious set of people to game the system.

I feel the same way about a professional jury, except more so,

dannno
04-30-2012, 03:58 PM
I would be scared of a voluntary jury system, simply because it would be way to easy for an ambitious set of people to game the system.

I feel the same way about a professional jury, except more so,

So your solution is to threaten innocent people with fines and jail time?

Wow.

Danke
04-30-2012, 04:01 PM
It is voluntary. Just like the Income Tax.

But I know the argument, if you fight that you will lose, corrupt courts, etc.

tttppp
04-30-2012, 04:05 PM
If the court were willing to pay jurors a fair wage, a lot of people would sign up to be professional voluntary jurors. A big reason nobody wants to be a juror is because they don't adequately compensate you.

Additionally, nobody wants to take time off from real work for a job that is just temporary.

tod evans
04-30-2012, 04:12 PM
Pissed off jurys are not a bad thing......The jurors just need to know that it is the prosecution who drug them into court.

If an impartial jury doesn't agree with the prosecutor then the prosecutor needs to be held personally liable for the time and suffering of the defendant.

The court system is such a mess because there is no personal liability for any of the governments agents.

Danke
04-30-2012, 04:12 PM
If the court were willing to pay jurors a fair wage, a lot of people would sign up to be professional voluntary jurors. A big reason nobody wants to be a juror is because they don't adequately compensate you.

Additionally, nobody wants to take time off from real work for a job that is just temporary.

It is more than just an increase in compensation. A small businessman can't leave his business for an extended amount of time. It could result in the end of his business.

tttppp
04-30-2012, 04:16 PM
It is more than just an increase in compensation. A small businessman can't leave his business for an extended amount of time. It could result in the end of his business.

I know, I stated that too. Nobody wants to leave a real job and potentially put that at risk for something that is just temporary and has no future.

tod evans
04-30-2012, 04:17 PM
If the court were willing to pay jurors a fair wage, a lot of people would sign up to be professional voluntary jurors. A big reason nobody wants to be a juror is because they don't adequately compensate you.

Additionally, nobody wants to take time off from real work for a job that is just temporary.

We're borrowing money from China to fund useless wars............I suppose we could see if maybe India would loan us some to fund the court system.....

Danke
04-30-2012, 04:18 PM
I know, I stated that too. Nobody wants to leave a real job and potentially put that at risk for something that is just temporary and has no future.

So your solution is "professional voluntary jurors."

Not sure I want to consider those my "peers."

tttppp
04-30-2012, 04:21 PM
So your solution is "professional voluntary jurors."

Not sure I want to consider those my "peers."

There are ways that this could be done fairly. Like everything else, there are ways to do this unfairly too. I would rather have professional jurors who take the time to understand the law rather than just going with their emotions. I'm sure lots of times they just convict people people because the prosecution convinces them he's a bad guy.

tttppp
04-30-2012, 04:22 PM
We're borrowing money from China to fund useless wars............I suppose we could see if maybe India would loan us some to fund the court system.....

If you had a professional jury, you wouldn't have to incur the costs of interviewing hundreds of jurors every time there's a new trial. Additionally, there are several other ways to cut costs in this system.

Danke
04-30-2012, 04:24 PM
There are way that this could be done fairly. Like everything else, there are ways to do this unfairly too. I would rather have professional jurors who take the time to understand the law rather than just going with their emotions. I'm sure lots of times they just convict people people because the prosecution convinces them he's a bad guy.

"Professionals" have gotten us BAR attorneys that will be disbarred if they truly take on the system.

tttppp
04-30-2012, 04:25 PM
"Professionals" have gotten us BAR attorneys that will be disbarred if they truly take on the system.

What does that have to do with anything?

tod evans
04-30-2012, 04:26 PM
If you had a professional jury, you wouldn't have to incur the costs of interviewing hundreds of jurors every time there's a new trial. Additionally, there are several other ways to cut costs in this system.

Here's a "no cost" cut-n-paste from another jury thread earlier today;


Voir-dire needs to be fixed.

A juror should be treated better than the judge, and there should never be prosecutorial challenges to the jury pool.

This belief that the deck needs to be stacked in favor of the government must end.

16 people summoned, 12 seated at the defense's option.....off we go.

Ex-cons, religious zealots, racists and martians are all fine-n-dandy just as long as they're from the same voting district as the defendant.

The prosecutor already had his chance with a stacked deck when he sought an indictment behind closed doors.

All jurors must be aware of their power to override the judge and the prosecutor.


[edit]

A jury of your peers should mean exactly that;

peer1    [peer] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers.
2.
a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

Danke
04-30-2012, 04:31 PM
What does that have to do with anything?

I guess it is not obvious. To me it is.

Who selects and determines who will be the professional jurors? What must they do to maintain that status? And, as the pool may be great, how do we determine who sits on said case? etc. etc.

How about just make it a random pick of ones peers and let anyone opt out if they so choose?

TheGrinch
04-30-2012, 04:40 PM
How about just make it a random pick of ones peers and let anyone opt out if they so choose?
Agreed, ideally it should be voluntary in that you can opt out if you don't wish to be a juror, but that does create a real problem, because compensation is never going to be in line with a real job under the current system, and it would make it far tougher to fill out a jury... Unfortunately there aren't more people like me who was actually disappointed when I got released from jury duty without being part of a trial.

However, I completely agree that a jury of your peers is not something that should be privatized. Look at how the prosecution and defense already choose/dismiss jurors more/less favorable to them, and I think this only opens up the door for real corruption.

Not to mention a jury of your peers (not hired "professionals") is one of the things that is guaranteed by the constitution, so unless Dr. Paul views 'voluntary" as we did above, then I'm not sure how he can look at it as a free market matter. A fair trial is one of the few powers that we have, with good reason, afforded to the government to do...

heavenlyboy34
04-30-2012, 04:53 PM
Agreed, ideally it should be voluntary in that you can opt out if you don't wish to be a juror, but that does create a real problem, because compensation is never going to be in line with a real job under the current system, and it would make it far tougher to fill out a jury... Unfortunately there aren't more people like me who was actually disappointed when I got released from jury duty without being part of a trial.

However, I completely agree that a jury of your peers is not something that should be privatized. Look at how the prosecution and defense already choose/dismiss jurors more/less favorable to them, and I think this only opens up the door for real corruption.

Not to mention a jury of your peers (not hired "professionals") is one of the things that is guaranteed by the constitution, so unless Dr. Paul views 'voluntary" as we did above, then I'm not sure how he can look at it as a free market matter. A fair trial is one of the few powers that we have, with good reason, afforded to the government to do...
I'm glad you brought this up, because it begs another question-can there really be a fair trial when the government has (virtually) unlimited funds to make a case against you-and fighting the government can easily bankrupt a person?

Danke
04-30-2012, 04:57 PM
Agreed, ideally it should be voluntary in that you can opt out if you don't wish to be a juror, but that does create a real problem, because compensation is never going to be in line with a real job under the current system, and it would make it far tougher to fill out a jury... Unfortunately there aren't more people like me who was actually disappointed when I got released from jury duty without being part of a trial.

However, I completely agree that a jury of your peers is not something that should be privatized. Look at how the prosecution and defense already choose/dismiss jurors more/less favorable to them, and I think this only opens up the door for real corruption.

Not to mention a jury of your peers (not hired "professionals") is one of the things that is guaranteed by the constitution, so unless Dr. Paul views 'voluntary" as we did above, then I'm not sure how he can look at it as a free market matter. A fair trial is one of the few powers that we have, with good reason, afforded to the government to do...

I have been kick off the jury pool twice. And I have had jobs that would pay me full salary if I ended up on the jury.

TheGrinch
04-30-2012, 04:58 PM
I'm glad you brought this up, because it begs another question-can there really be a fair trial when the government has (virtually) unlimited funds to make a case against you-and fighting the government can easily bankrupt a person?
With a prosecutor? I don't think I'd call that anywhere close to unlimited funds like the corporations have to basically buy a trial with high-priced lawyers, but that ain't what a government prosecutor is... I mean, yes, they're going for convictions, but it's not a matter of funds. If I'm not mistaken, they're fairly low on the high-priced lawyer totem pole.

But if you're privatizing juries, then you only open up more potential for them to be bought off. That's where unlimited funds can be a lot more scary, regardless of who's funding it.

tttppp
04-30-2012, 06:55 PM
I guess it is not obvious. To me it is.

Who selects and determines who will be the professional jurors? What must they do to maintain that status? And, as the pool may be great, how do we determine who sits on said case? etc. etc.

How about just make it a random pick of ones peers and let anyone opt out if they so choose?

I haven't completely thought out the entire system, but there's definitely a way to make it fair or unfair.

One thing that should definitely be avoided is allowing companies in charge of prisons selecting the juries. That would be horrible.

jmdrake
04-30-2012, 07:13 PM
If they let people who wanted to be on jury duty sign up for it I'd bet they'd get more than enough. Most law students would love to sit on a jury so they could get first hand experience on what's going on. In fact one idea would be to offer academic credit for jury duty.

tttppp
04-30-2012, 07:16 PM
If they let people who wanted to be on jury duty sign up for it I'd bet they'd get more than enough. Most law students would love to sit on a jury so they could get first hand experience on what's going on. In fact one idea would be to offer academic credit for jury duty.

I like that idea. Also, it improves the jury quality by having people on there that are focused on the law.

Danke
04-30-2012, 07:20 PM
I like that idea. Also, it improves the jury quality by having people on there that are focused on the law.

Oh great. Now we get a lot of pre-law lawyer wannabees sitting on juries. Sure, they have no career ambitions / conflict of interest... that I already brought up.

Law school doesn't even teach about the 4th branch of govenment and the difference between administrative law and common law. Let alone agency vs.substantive regulations and statues. What a nightmare.

tttppp
04-30-2012, 07:24 PM
Oh great. Now we get a lot of pre-law lawyer wannabees sitting on juries. Sure, they have no career ambitions / conflict of interest... that I already brought up.

How are they going to be worse than the idiots who are already on jury duty? I'd rather have someone who wants to be there than someone who is pissed that he is there and probably isn't even paying attention.

Danke
04-30-2012, 07:26 PM
How are they going to be worse than the idiots who are already on jury duty? I'd rather have someone who wants to be there than someone who is pissed that he is there and probably isn't even paying attention.

That was already address. Voluntary. Your peers.

jmdrake
04-30-2012, 07:42 PM
Oh great. Now we get a lot of pre-law lawyer wannabees sitting on juries. Sure, they have no career ambitions / conflict of interest... that I already brought up.

Law school doesn't even teach about the 4th branch of govenment and the difference between administrative law and common law. Let alone agency vs.substantive regulations and statues. What a nightmare.

Mine did. One of my professors actually wrote a casebook on the administrative state. We were the guinea pigs, having to deal with a book that at that point was just a bunch of unbound handouts. (Yikes!) The benefit of law students is that they would likely want to be there and would probably pay attention even if the case was boring. I'm not sure how there would be a conflict of interest. You're afraid they might vote against a potential employer? I suppose, but that's quite a remote possibility. Still, you'd rather not have people on there because you think they might not have studied thinks like administrative law (a requirement and many law schools) as opposed to the general public, most of whom definitely haven't heard of the administrative state? Note I'm not saying others shouldn't be on juries, just that if law students could get credit for it they wouldn't worry about the fact that jurors are underpaid. Anyway, it's unlikely to happen. Most lawyers don't want other lawyers or law students on juries. So such an idea would never get through any legislative body since most legislatures are dominated by lawyers.

idiom
04-30-2012, 07:45 PM
I assume of course everybody commenting in this thread has read The Wasps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wasps)?

Danke
04-30-2012, 07:50 PM
Mine did. One of my professors actually wrote a casebook on the administrative state. We were the guinea pigs, having to deal with a book that at that point was just a bunch of unbound handouts. (Yikes!) The benefit of law students is that they would likely want to be there and would probably pay attention even if the case was boring. I'm not sure how there would be a conflict of interest. You're afraid they might vote against a potential employer? I suppose, but that's quite a remote possibility. Still, you'd rather not have people on there because you think they might not have studied thinks like administrative law (a requirement and many law schools) as opposed to the general public, most of whom definitely haven't heard of the administrative state? Note I'm not saying others shouldn't be on juries, just that if law students could get credit for it they wouldn't worry about the fact that jurors are underpaid. Anyway, it's unlikely to happen. Most lawyers don't want other lawyers or law students on juries. So such an idea would never get through any legislative body since most legislatures are dominated by lawyers.

So they teach administrative law. Great. Now how does that have anything to do with me (the private man on the land)? Do they teach how regulations are not necessarily law?

ProIndividual
05-01-2012, 06:23 AM
Who selects and determines who will be the professional jurors?

The market would decide.

Let me get this straight...you think it's okay to pay professional judges, but can't see the same logic in paying professional jurors? They would be paid based on impartial reputation.

Right now we use argumentum ad populum (appeal to the mob) to elect judges (or worse, they're appointed by sociopath politicians), whereas market law would dictate they actually have to be prefered by customers (citizens) is panarchist legal contracts via private defense agencies (you know, without a monopoly on law and courts based off simple geography?).

There is no reason to be against pro jurors unless you're against professional judges...in fact, you should be against judges being pros more, not less...they have more centralized power over the legal process than 12 jurors who all share equal power apportionment. Either advocate for socializing judges and making them serve by force as well, or gain consistency and market understanding by advocating for professional jurors and an end to the monopoly on law in a geographic area. Law need not be geographically based or monopolized. It can be contractual (like we're lied to now, and told it is via a "social contract" none of us agreed to, signed, or can void no matter how many times the other party - the government - break that contract).

Coerced monopolies (not those chosen by consumers because of good service) can only lead to worse service, higher costs, and less accountability. This is as predictable as breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide.

tod evans
05-01-2012, 06:28 AM
Let me get this straight...you think it's okay to pay professional judges, but can't see the same logic in paying professional jurors? .

My "peers" are not professional jurors.

ProIndividual
05-01-2012, 06:42 AM
I assume of course everybody commenting in this thread has read The Wasps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wasps)?

Every flaw in the Athenian system can be traced to the state's jurisdictional geographic coerced monopoly on law and courts...not paying voluntary jurors. The play seems to blame the symptom, not the disease (according to the Wiki article you linked).

First, the paid jurors were the aged men and they relied on it as form of state sponsored pension. So they naturally sided with the state and its wealthy oligarchs. Second, the jury pools every year were finite, as the state created an arbitrary barrier to entry in the juror market. Third, becuase of this barrier to entry, state monopolized system, and pension related drawbacks, the jurors were not selected by the market (citizens via panarchic legal contracts for arbitration of disputes) and therefore were not held liable (on threat of loss of their employment) based on their reputations as fair and non-bias arbitars....quite the contrary, they were selected based on arbitrary size jury pools and the state's prefered outcomes (including the state's benefactors, the rich and powerful oligarchs).

ProIndividual
05-01-2012, 06:43 AM
My "peers" are not professional jurors.

Sure they are, as you have every ability to hold the job yourself. By that logic, no one but a botanist should be able to judge a botanist. This is obviously not what is meant by peer.

I'll use your own reference definition:



peer1    [peer] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers.
2.
a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

It does not say vocation. If it is assumed you can also apply for a job of a pro juror, then you share ability, qualifications, social status, etc.

It's clearly irrelevant to peer status whether or not they are paid for their labors or not...other than accountability, cost efficiency, and service quality. If the market determines by reputation for impartiality who are the best jurors, as they do for any profession and it's needed skill set, then accountability to the customer (citizens) will be better, costs will be lower, and service will be of better quality.

tod evans
05-01-2012, 07:05 AM
Sure they are, as you have ever ability to hold the job yourself. By that logic, no one but a botanist should be able to judge a botanist. This is obviously not what is meant by peer.

I'll use your own reference definition:



It does not say vocation. If it is assumed you can also apply for a job of a pro juror, then you share ability, qualifications, social status, etc.

It's clearly irrelevant to peer status whether orn ot they are paid for their labors or not...other than accountability, cost efficiency, and service quality.

So are you advocating that every voting district fund "professional jurors"?

One problem I can see is more legislation and the associated expenses.

Another issue I notice is that throughout this discussion there has been no mention of the various types of "trials" juries are seated for.

I fear that if "professionals" are recruited as "impartial jury members" that the governments already easy job of convicting the accused would cease to even be a job and trials would only be held as formalities.

It's not supposed to be easy for the government to convict one of it's citizens and removing the last battison of supposed impartiality in favor of 12 government employees just seems wrong to me.



Or are you suggesting that "professional jurors" be paid from something other than tax dollars?

If this is the case then who funds the jurors for the thousands of defendants that must use government paid defense attorneys?

ProIndividual
05-01-2012, 02:04 PM
So are you advocating that every voting district fund "professional jurors"?

One problem I can see is more legislation and the associated expenses.

Another issue I notice is that throughout this discussion there has been no mention of the various types of "trials" juries are seated for.

I fear that if "professionals" are recruited as "impartial jury members" that the governments already easy job of convicting the accused would cease to even be a job and trials would only be held as formalities.

It's not supposed to be easy for the government to convict one of it's citizens and removing the last battison of supposed impartiality in favor of 12 government employees just seems wrong to me.



Or are you suggesting that "professional jurors" be paid from something other than tax dollars?

If this is the case then who funds the jurors for the thousands of defendants that must use government paid defense attorneys?

I'd suggest you abolish voting, the state, and districts altogether...and instead use panarchy, polycentric legal order, and panarchist synthesis in economics and organization.

To put this in the context of voting districts within a state would end like everything else the state does...badly.

See my response above about the Athenian model when they had paid jurors for the reasons that model failed.

As far as more legislation, there is never need for more than one law...natural law. That law says "Do No Harm". If harm is illegal, so is fraud. If harm and fraud are illegal, then additional laws can only be A) redundant to that, or B) adverse to it. Redundancy is expensive and a waste of time. Adversity is tyranny. This is the logical summation of why legislatures should be abolished.

That being said, you can vote all you like...but only those who choose to vote with you are held to the outcome of that vote. Although I see voting as aggression, I also see boxing as abusive. I'd no more seek to ban you from boxing than I would seek to ban you from voting with willing participants. Voting within a state is equal to assault when those not choosing to vote are held to the outcome of those votes...voting in panarchy among only willing participants is much like boxing (masochistic and detrimental to the self, but no less entertaining for those watching).

Obviously, if there is no need for a legislature of coercion, there is no need for some sociopath to kiss babies and politcize your military. It's not like he keeps a coup from happening...the military could take over any time they like. No legislatures or civilian Commander-in-Chief could stop them. They simply don't put in place a military junta out of patriotism. I say allow them to run themselves, and privatize them so they can be subject to market forces of competition that would make their costs to us for defense lower, the quality of the service better, make war disadvantageous unless in self defense as a last resort, and to give them more accountability to those who pay for defense (with blood and/or treasure).

And as I've described in posts above, you can easily privatize the judicial system and legal contracts (now called "social contracts"), making them based on voluntary contractual association...not statist geographic demesne.

So, now we've abolished the coerced legislature without banning voting for those who wish to do it, we've abolished the Executive without banning leadership among willing people, and have privatized the legal contracts, the military, and the court system. That's panarchism (pan-anarchism).

So your reservations concerning the context of the state only apply as criticisms of the state itself...not paying jurors.

In panarchy there is no telling how many different legal contracts would exist, and how these trials would exist or be handled...so there is no need to go into the different types of trials, as some will have juries, some will have several judges, some will have one judge, etc. We simply have no uniformity, only pre-arranged arbitration systems agreed to by private legal firms with whom you sign a contract.

Are there uniform methods with cable TV companies or phone companies you sign contracts with? Somewhat, but each company is idfferent, depending on their clientele. The same would be true of legal contracts...as they would have nothing to do with geography, would not be monopolized, and would be as easy to get in and out of as a cell phone, cable, or phone provider contract.

If people are hired based on their reputation as being imp[atrial it cannot logically lead to easier convictions...quite the opposite. It would lead to not more or less, but more impartial. That may mean more in some areas (like white collar crime) and less in others (like other types of crime).

But again, why then don't you oppose paid judges? Why do you so fear paid jurors and instead prefer people being threatened into service for their labor? Is this not temporary slavery? Why not socialize lawyers while you're at it?

The fact is, nothing but the state makes the "justice" system suck...because it's a coerced monopoly which leads to what all coerced monopolies lead to: higher costs, lower quality service, and little or no accountability. Because of the barrier to entry for competitors, the system will ALWAYS degrade.

Why ignore this MAJOR problem for some minor problems like whether you have socialized and forced jury pools versus paid and voluntary jurors? Seems to me you look right past the forrest and only see the trees.

It's not supposed to be easy for the govt to convict...but apparently it's okay for them to threaten people and temporarily enslave them to force them into being "impartial". Somehow I don't think making these decisions under duress makes you very impartial.

It makes you less likely to deadlock and have hung juries...because you just want to get out this nonsense unpaid activity and back to your compensated labor (job) and your own life.

AS far as how jurors are paid...I'm against all extortion (tax), whether done by the state, churches, unions, or the local rotary club. Call me crazy, I like ethical consistency. So no, we won't be paying them out of taxes...we'd be paying them out of fees for the for-profit or non-profit legal contracts which you sign with your individual legal contractor. I'll link you to videos if you want to understand how it works:

Watch the last 3 videos here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?369158-Deconstructing-the-state&p=4316866#post4316866)...they run about a half hour total (bottom of the page, bottom 3 vids). Watch the first video only if you want to hear the logical and ethical basis for this way of organizing society and law, and a critique of Hobbes and Locke by a Mises scholar at Mises Institute.

But if you wanted to do it from taxes, it'd still be better than forcing people to sit on juries unpaid or low paid below market value...as again, they will not hang many juries that way.

And if charity can feed the poor, house the homeless, and treat the sick before the govt monopolized the welfare system (look up mutual aid societies, and imagine them based off your vocation or location instead of race), then I'd think the same could handle the poor who need legal help.

But then again, if the monopolies of the state didn't exist, we'd have a larger economy and far less poor to worry about too.

tod evans
05-01-2012, 03:46 PM
I'd suggest you abolish voting, the state, and districts altogether...and instead use panarchy, polycentric legal order, and panarchist synthesis in economics and organization.

.


I can see logic in your proposal but unfortunately neither of us come equipped with a magic wand..

Even Ron Paul suggests gradual changes....What I'm suggesting leaves a portion of the status-quo intact but would drastically cut the power currently enjoyed by the government.

To me it just seems prudent to at least try to somewhat work within the current system......(Kinda like Ron in the RNC)

Suggesting that every citizen carry "criminal insurance" to defend against allegations of wrong-doing by the government or another citizen probably wouldn't sit well with most folks.

ProIndividual
05-02-2012, 05:04 AM
I can see logic in your proposal but unfortunately neither of us come equipped with a magic wand..

Even Ron Paul suggests gradual changes....What I'm suggesting leaves a portion of the status-quo intact but would drastically cut the power currently enjoyed by the government.

To me it just seems prudent to at least try to somewhat work within the current system......(Kinda like Ron in the RNC)

Suggesting that every citizen carry "criminal insurance" to defend against allegations of wrong-doing by the government or another citizen probably wouldn't sit well with most folks.

Oh I agree...I'm for gradual evolution through proper parenting (85% of the solution), adult conversions (10% of the cure), and political action (5% of the solution). No magic wand needed...just gradual change.

And the first gradual change would be to abolish force wherever possible (like in jury "duty"). Second would be to quit fighting the market and paying people above or below market rates (as with low compensated jurors).

I agree we should infiltrate the mafia (state) and bring it down from within. That's how you beat mafias (states). That's pretty well proven.

What sits well with most folks doesn't concern me...as most folks are idiots. That's why argumentum ad populum is an informal logical fallacy, basically equal to polling a lynch mob and wondering why we keep getting lynching as a result. It's the same reason democracies and republics fail. Individual morons don't become intelleigent as a collective. But I see your point. That's why anarchism is truly the 2nd Enlightenment, and like the 1st Enlightenment that brought down overly centralized tyrannical religious institutions (w/o banning them completely), the 2nd Enlightenemnt will bring down the institution that took it's place as the most powerful, centralized, and tyrannical...the state. We won't ban government, just compulsory government...voluntary government wil always exist (whether self government or voluntary external government).

It's going to be a several century long process...and it will not complete in my lifetime.

But that means it's all that more important we argue our case and change hearts and minds where possible...which I do constantly. I've definately won over some converts from both political Parties, the apathetic, and the agnostic (politcially).

We have a philosophy...they have just an ideology. It's our job to educate them, show them logic, reason, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and aesthetics. Wherever they lack one of these, we must introduce it.

Like the Allegory of the Cave, sometimes the light (of reason) can be blinding and painful...but eventually the pain subsides and truth is better than darkness (ignorance) and chains (willfull ignorance).

Law will be one day strictly contractual with no regard to geography...the state is largely (and quickly) becoming obsolete because of the increasing complexity of society and life. Either the state dies, or it extincts us all as the inevitable social entropy (in regard to the state) sets in.

I say bring on the entropy! Bring on liberty :)