National Service

Yes, "of course" there should be no jury duty. Someone will provide you with justice. Let them bear the cost. It's not like you're an anarchist. You just don't think there is any cost to your freedom. To you it will not be justice unless you can get it for free.

To quote Ronald Reagan - "there he goes again..."

Post 61

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 2:33pm

Hi Jeff,

I believe your post 57 was directed toward me, not Jay. I wonder if Ted might've confused us as well?

In any event, some of the strategy talk here reminds me of a thread I popped out awhile back: "Objectivists offer solutions for the ideal, not the real."

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0039.shtml#0

Jordan

Post 62

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 3:01pm

Robert E.,

Thank you for your comments. I confess I had to re-read a couple of parts. I would comment that the evil is all around us already, and the cases I suggested we examine have already decided by others with values that don't resemble ours. If they (or at least enough key people) are going to change their values to agree with us, they'll need to know they can talk with us in other than all or nothing terms. I have never said that we should surrender our values to them. I have suggested that we re-examine cases to find some common ground. I have suggested our values, however important and ethical, also carry some tangible negative consequences deserving recognition. With the possible exception of conscription (Steve, I had misused that word earlier), which is for now (and hopefully forever) history, these other issues - eminent domain, regulations, taxes, et al - are already facts of life.

Unless any of us are waiting to be fitted for a striped uniform, we have already accepted/lived with them as 'fait-accompli' acts, and we must, unless we are willing to go to prison for non-compliance with the laws. The good thing is that we can still voice our opinions, and still lobby for change. I see ROR as one such lobby. So, I say I am trying to be practical. I would happily defend and strongly promote every ethical argument that has been presented to me here, but I would not wish to mandate employing these ideals in an all or nothing way... because nothing is all that would be accomplished.

One doesn't have to/shouldn't surrender an inch on Objectivist values, but on actions that have already been lost to unethical practice, one can at least try to capture an inch, one at a time, until acceptance of Objectivist values becomes, simply, a natural step. Philosophy isn't just an ethereal, intellectual pursuit. It is rooted, rightly, in the real world, and must be applied in the real world.

Maybe this crosses the line. But the government has already crossed the line, and erected a wall. I'd like for us be able to hold our banner high, and start removing the loose bricks.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 9/15, 3:06pm)

Post 63

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 3:01pm

Ted writes:

Yes, "of course" there should be no jury duty. Someone will provide you with justice. Let them bear the cost. It's not like you're an anarchist. You just don't think there is any cost to your freedom. To you it will not be justice unless you can get it for free.

Ted:

You're full of crap. I'm not going to dignify this with a serious reply.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 64

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 3:09pm

Jordan wrote:

Hi Jeff, I believe your post 57 was directed toward me, not Jay. I wonder if Ted might've confused us as well?

Jordan:

You are correct. I was responding to your post #56 and not to Jay. I apologize to both of you. However, I don't think that has anything to do with Ted's response. Apparently he believes that people should be forced into jury duty as the price of "justice", and is taking exception that I disagree. But he is not just expressing his exception with rational arguments, he is hurling innuendos and insults.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 65

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 3:15pm

In the end there has to be (six or) twelve jurors physically filling those seats. I don't want to get involved in the issues surrounding the word 'duty', but agree with Ted, if he is saying that money is not the only currency for paying for the 'service' of government or the courts.

jt

Post 66

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 3:59pm

No, no, no! There is no cost or inconvenience, or even effort needed to establish justice! Just arguments and the proper set of values. That is, words and intentions. That is, wishes and prayers. Only interventionists and militarists who like wars and who glorify the state pretend that all things have a cost and that one can neither have nor deserve justice and freedom without being willing to pay for it.

Rand was an idealist. The actual ability to implement one's wishes didn't matter so long as one had thoughts that were pure. She idolized General Jack D. Ripper's motto "Purity of Essence." That's why she said that movement toward a free nation must begin with two things, the abolition of taxes, and the privatization of roads. Until then, anyone who votes in a way that could actually effect an election of a Democrat or a Republican, or anyone who advocates such side issues as a balanced budget or national self-defense, is just a Neo-Con! (The caps and exclamation mark are Mandatory!)

---

No, you misspoke. You are "full of blustering rage" and you can't answer. At least that's what your offended, "Liberal hears the name Palin"-type response indicates, Jeff. You did this before when presented with a similarly difficult argument. Good luck with that.

Post 67

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 4:01pm

Jordan,

Two wrongs don't make a right. Anyone forced to provide labor is subjected to involuntary servitude - it is a kind of slavery. I don't think it would be a problem to find 3 or 4 easy work-arounds for jury duty. Higher pay for sitting on a jury, tax breaks, limits of once per decade, being a juror once a year as a condition of being on a government payroll, once a year duty for everyone working as a practicing attorney, etc., etc.

Ted,

We pay police, we pay administrators, we legislators, we pay judges, we pay for an all volunteer military which is the best the world has ever seen. And notice that I said "we" pay - those of us using these systems to provide our safety and justice pay their salaries with our tax dollars. Are you advocating some form of temporary enslavement to handle jurors as if it were different from all other forms of human interaction, as well as outside of the realm of morality? Your sarcastic remark appears to have been made without much thought.

Post 68

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 4:10pm

Steve, thanks for arguing your point. Yes, we pay those people. And you are presumably advocating paying jurors, no? But with what? Tax money? I am quite happy to entertain any legitimate system which works. I am also quite happy to let people who don't want to support the cost of legitimate government opt out of the system entirely. One could argue he doesn't like the word tax, that he wants a voluntary system. I agree: if a person doesn't want to serve on a jury, or pay to support the jury system, then he won't expect altruists to pay for him - he'll just say he doesn't want court protection.

Post 69

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 4:24pm

So how about subpoenas? Search warrants? Taxes? Compulsion is everywhere. But this is off topic.

Jordan

Post 70

Monday, September 15, 2008 - 4:44pm

Ted,

We agree - yes, pay jurors - with tax dollars, or give tax breaks, or let them opt out of ever being able to use a jury without reimbursing the cost of the jury to get one when needed (if they can't or won't - then the judge will act as the trier of fact), or many other possibilities.

Jurors are part of the legal system which is part of the structure to protect individual rights - it is legitimate to put it on the tax bill.

Jordan,

You said, "So how about subpoenas? Search warrants? Taxes? Compulsion is everywhere. But this is off topic." I don't think it's very far off topic. Search warrants require probable cause of violating rights (assuming it is for an alleged crime involving individual rights), so, yes, there is some compulsion, but it brings out truth that will convict the guilty - who had no right to resist, or free the innocent (not enough evidence to try). So, that one doesn't bother me. Subpoenas... I don't know. I'd have to think about that one. I'm not going to worry about it in the meantime since it is hardly a crushing form of oppression the way losing ones home to eminent domain is. Taxes... I believe that when (maybe I should say if) we get government down to its legitimate size, that we will be able to find purely voluntary means of supporting it financially. I don't see very many forms of compulsion in a minarchist system.

Edit: Just a note - Actually, a subpoena has no force of compulsion - it is a request. But there are court orders - like subpoenas but compulsive.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/15, 6:49pm)

Post 71

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 3:48am

In past experience, I have been called to jury duty three times, but have always declined due to honest work conflicts. From this perspective, jury duty almost seems voluntary today. This, I suppose, is a moot point.

I do not think there is anything wrong is asking citizens to perform 'service' on a jury. I do not believe they should be making citizens perform 'duty' on a jury.

I do believe to assure justice that there has to be some randomness to jury selection, which necessitates having a broad pool of potential jurors. So looking to the general citizenry for candidates is a logical choice.

By the way, at least in my state - and I suspect in most - jurors are paid. However, it is a mere token amount, insufficient to compensate for lost pay, although, I think - do not know - that employers are expected not to deduct wages for time lost.

jt

Post 72

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 11:17am

Hi Steve,

Yeah, I guess I should've said "court orders on motions to compel," rather than "subpoenas," but that's so verbose. But to be fair, subpoenas are compulsory in that failing to obey them can really bite the disobedient party in the rear.

A new thread about all the various forms of judicial compulsion (i.e., due process) might be worthwhile.

I'll say for now that I think jury service is preferable to submitting to the possible myriad draconian court orders that can come down the pipe at the unwitting party.

Jordan

Post 73

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 6:04pm

I come late to this conversation, so maybe this has already come up. How about making jury service a condition of voting? It gets rid of coercion and would probably get you a better class of jurors.

Post 74

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 6:10pm