Showing posts with label jury nullification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jury nullification. Show all posts
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Libertarian Party of Arkansas Ballot Access - 2014
Please contribute to the Libertarian Party of Arkansas 2014 Ballot Access Effort. This will allow us to run candidates for State Legislature, the highest office yet won by Libertarian Party candidates. This will allow us to pursue a grassroots strategy of State Nullification. In addition, it will allow us to perform jury rights activism outside of AR courthouses, encouraging jury nullification of law. Again, the contribution link to help finance this effort is: http://lpar.org/ballot2014/ Thank you!
A Reading List For Libertarian Activists
Essential Reading Regarding Jury Rights, Especially For Libertarian Activists:
Send In The Waco Killers
by Vin Suprynowicz
This book will help define the problem of tyranny, for those who think that America is still a free country, with equality under the law. It's an excellent overview of the largest and most important power-grabs made by government in the past 100 years. This book is well worth reading to get everyone on the same page about what the most important problems are, as far as American liberty is concerned. The freedom movement is useless, unless it has clear solutions for those problems that can be implemented, starting now. This book contains arguments in favor of "jury nullification of law," specific examples of it, and an accurately-prioritized description of how the current legal system has been corrupted by the unconstitutional courtroom procedure of "voir dire" (prosecutorial jury-selection).
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine
by Clay Conrad
This book will show you your full power as a member of the jury, and how to exercise that power. It's an excellent overview of the largest and most important power-grabs made by government in the past 100 years, with a clear and detailed insight as to how to reverse them. You hold the power as a member of the Jury, you just need to reach out and claim it.
Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice
by Paul Butler
Historically, juries exist to answer three questions: (1)Most importantly: Is the law in question legitimate? (2)Second most importantly: If legitimate, is it being fairly applied in this case? (3)Least important: Did the accused break the law? In addition to covering different areas of the topics covered in Conrad's book, this book argues for a compelling interpretation of point number two prior. This book makes a case for "political jury nullification," when justice systems refuse to apply legitimate laws evenly, against minorities. For example: In California at the turn of the century, there was a law that made it illegal for Chinese people to testify against white people in court, due to the prejudice whites had for the large numbers of Chinese railworker immigrants. So, civil rights activists encouraged white jurors not to convict chinese people of murder, until the situation changed (which it eventually did, due to the pressure put on the courts). Butler argues (with mountains of well-researched evidence) that the current war on drugs has always been racist, and seeks a similar solution. Well worth reading.
The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Volume II: The Methods of Nonviolent Action
by Gene Sharp
This book deals with eliminating the causes of tyranny by appealing to broad public opinion, using nonviolent tactics. This book will be especially useful for activists who are concerned with the problem that the freedom movement is seemingly "outgunned" by the government.
Works That Explain How Libertarian Movements Can and Have Succeeded:
Freedom for Alaskans
by Dick Randolph
A book about the prospect of electing libertarians to office in Alaska, the state with possibly the most inherently-libertarian demographics in the nation. In Alaska, from 1978-1982, there were more Libertarians elected (to offices capable of significantly expanding individual freedom) than there have been anywhere else, before or since. The result of this accomplishment (and the ballot access initiative promoted by Dick Randolph) is that it is illegal for Alaska to have a State income tax. If the Libertarian Party wants to replicate this accomplishment, then why don't they learn from the successes pioneered by Randolph? I understand why Libertarians place more emphasis on philosophy than strategy, but I strongly disagree with that emphasis. Both are essential to any legitimate freedom movement, as is this book.
The Triumph of Liberty: A 2,000 Year History Told Through the Lives of Freedom's Greatest Champions
by Jim Powell
A book precisely described by its subtitle. This book is a broad and general high-hierarchical level overview that allows people to see many avenues toward effectively advancing individual freedom. Most chapters are no more than 5 to 10 pages, but they are information-packed pages. "Triumph" introduces the reader to the people who advanced freedom the most rapidly, and briefly explores the strategies they used. This book serves as an excellent "starting point" for those who want to get a handle on how quickly the cause of individual liberty can be advanced, and what strategies are most likely to rapidly advance the cause of liberty. Some of the movements and individuals outlined in this book served to keep the ideas of liberty alive, others organized mass movements that directly reduced state interference with people's lives. Well worth reading for those who want to understand, historically, the answers to the questions, "What has expanded individual freedom the most?" and "What tactics work best to expand liberty?"
Top Futurist Works on Life Extension:
Fantastic Voyage
by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman
Perhaps the best book on extending healthspan that currently exists. Contains the best up-to-date health information available, as well as information about how one can stay on top of emerging life-extension technology. This is the information and cellular-reprogramming approach to diet and health, par excellence. Contains a lot of information that is immediately useful, as well as a look at what is likely to come in both the short and long term. "Reprogramming Our Biochemistry for Immortality" Interview with Ray Kurzweil
Ending Aging
by Aubrey de Grey
The book "Ending Aging" deals with eliminating the causes of aging, beyond heart attack, cancer, and stroke (the big 3). Going far beyond extending healthspan, de Grey's book focuses on eliminating the buildup of cellular garbage that contributes to age-related decline in biological functioning. If you want to know whether this book contains information of interest to you, you should read de Grey's "Bootstrapping Our Way to an Ageless Future" (free online copy).
World Without Cancer
by G. Edward Griffin
In the age of Obama, we all need to individualize our personal approach to medicine, or allow the socialized government medical cartels to pump us full of patented pills. This phenomenal book explains how individuals can best prevent and possibly defeat cancer, using a simple, natural preventative diet, commonly found. The second half of the book is a fascinating look into how the private sector of chemical processing industry merged with government allowing legal monopolies to defeat medical freedom in the USA, in the early 1900s.
Send In The Waco Killers
by Vin Suprynowicz
This book will help define the problem of tyranny, for those who think that America is still a free country, with equality under the law. It's an excellent overview of the largest and most important power-grabs made by government in the past 100 years. This book is well worth reading to get everyone on the same page about what the most important problems are, as far as American liberty is concerned. The freedom movement is useless, unless it has clear solutions for those problems that can be implemented, starting now. This book contains arguments in favor of "jury nullification of law," specific examples of it, and an accurately-prioritized description of how the current legal system has been corrupted by the unconstitutional courtroom procedure of "voir dire" (prosecutorial jury-selection).
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine
by Clay Conrad
This book will show you your full power as a member of the jury, and how to exercise that power. It's an excellent overview of the largest and most important power-grabs made by government in the past 100 years, with a clear and detailed insight as to how to reverse them. You hold the power as a member of the Jury, you just need to reach out and claim it.
Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice
by Paul Butler
Historically, juries exist to answer three questions: (1)Most importantly: Is the law in question legitimate? (2)Second most importantly: If legitimate, is it being fairly applied in this case? (3)Least important: Did the accused break the law? In addition to covering different areas of the topics covered in Conrad's book, this book argues for a compelling interpretation of point number two prior. This book makes a case for "political jury nullification," when justice systems refuse to apply legitimate laws evenly, against minorities. For example: In California at the turn of the century, there was a law that made it illegal for Chinese people to testify against white people in court, due to the prejudice whites had for the large numbers of Chinese railworker immigrants. So, civil rights activists encouraged white jurors not to convict chinese people of murder, until the situation changed (which it eventually did, due to the pressure put on the courts). Butler argues (with mountains of well-researched evidence) that the current war on drugs has always been racist, and seeks a similar solution. Well worth reading.
The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Volume II: The Methods of Nonviolent Action
by Gene Sharp
This book deals with eliminating the causes of tyranny by appealing to broad public opinion, using nonviolent tactics. This book will be especially useful for activists who are concerned with the problem that the freedom movement is seemingly "outgunned" by the government.
Works That Explain How Libertarian Movements Can and Have Succeeded:
Freedom for Alaskans
by Dick Randolph
A book about the prospect of electing libertarians to office in Alaska, the state with possibly the most inherently-libertarian demographics in the nation. In Alaska, from 1978-1982, there were more Libertarians elected (to offices capable of significantly expanding individual freedom) than there have been anywhere else, before or since. The result of this accomplishment (and the ballot access initiative promoted by Dick Randolph) is that it is illegal for Alaska to have a State income tax. If the Libertarian Party wants to replicate this accomplishment, then why don't they learn from the successes pioneered by Randolph? I understand why Libertarians place more emphasis on philosophy than strategy, but I strongly disagree with that emphasis. Both are essential to any legitimate freedom movement, as is this book.
The Triumph of Liberty: A 2,000 Year History Told Through the Lives of Freedom's Greatest Champions
by Jim Powell
A book precisely described by its subtitle. This book is a broad and general high-hierarchical level overview that allows people to see many avenues toward effectively advancing individual freedom. Most chapters are no more than 5 to 10 pages, but they are information-packed pages. "Triumph" introduces the reader to the people who advanced freedom the most rapidly, and briefly explores the strategies they used. This book serves as an excellent "starting point" for those who want to get a handle on how quickly the cause of individual liberty can be advanced, and what strategies are most likely to rapidly advance the cause of liberty. Some of the movements and individuals outlined in this book served to keep the ideas of liberty alive, others organized mass movements that directly reduced state interference with people's lives. Well worth reading for those who want to understand, historically, the answers to the questions, "What has expanded individual freedom the most?" and "What tactics work best to expand liberty?"
Top Futurist Works on Life Extension:
Fantastic Voyage
by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman
Perhaps the best book on extending healthspan that currently exists. Contains the best up-to-date health information available, as well as information about how one can stay on top of emerging life-extension technology. This is the information and cellular-reprogramming approach to diet and health, par excellence. Contains a lot of information that is immediately useful, as well as a look at what is likely to come in both the short and long term. "Reprogramming Our Biochemistry for Immortality" Interview with Ray Kurzweil
Ending Aging
by Aubrey de Grey
The book "Ending Aging" deals with eliminating the causes of aging, beyond heart attack, cancer, and stroke (the big 3). Going far beyond extending healthspan, de Grey's book focuses on eliminating the buildup of cellular garbage that contributes to age-related decline in biological functioning. If you want to know whether this book contains information of interest to you, you should read de Grey's "Bootstrapping Our Way to an Ageless Future" (free online copy).
World Without Cancer
by G. Edward Griffin
In the age of Obama, we all need to individualize our personal approach to medicine, or allow the socialized government medical cartels to pump us full of patented pills. This phenomenal book explains how individuals can best prevent and possibly defeat cancer, using a simple, natural preventative diet, commonly found. The second half of the book is a fascinating look into how the private sector of chemical processing industry merged with government allowing legal monopolies to defeat medical freedom in the USA, in the early 1900s.
Please contribute to the Libertarian Party of Arkansas 2014 Ballot Access Effort. This will allow us to run candidates for State Legislature, the highest office yet won by Libertarian Party candidates. This will allow us to pursue a grassroots strategy of State Nullification. In addition, it will allow us to perform jury rights activism outside of AR courthouses, encouraging jury nullification of law. Again, the contribution link to help finance this effort is: http://lpar.org/ballot2014/ Thank you!
Friday, January 20, 2012
Undercutting the Racist Establishment
Ron Paul is heroic. I'm a middle aged person who would NEVER vote for any of the other mainstream false republicans. Incidentally, Ron Paul is right about getting his delegates on the ballot. If he does that, he's still a contender, because it can come down to him and Mitt "obviously unelectable" Romney, Newt "even less electable, death sentence for marijuana" Gingrich, or Rick "google santorum" Santorum. As soon as it's just 2 candidates, the other candidate will LOSE because distractions and lies don't work as well, when it's "mano e mano." Notice how Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all favor the Federal Reserve system, the drug war, some form of individual tax on labor or consumption. Materially, they favor UNACCOUNTABLE SYSTEMS OF CONTROL.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who favors clear accountability, and clear limits on government.
That said, if Paul somehow doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for and contributing to R. J. Harris at http://www.rjharris2012.com R. J. Harris is a principled Ron Paul supporter who fully understands a decentralized strategy of promoting liberty based on jury rights activism: bringing the power of freedom directly to the individual, without even winning a single election. Check out Ron Paul's "Power to the Jury" speech on youtube for more information about how this is accomplished, or visit http://www.jurorsforjustice.com or http://www.fija.org
One thing that Ron Paul could do to beat Romney and Obama would be to say that he'd consider Dr. Paul Butler (a Nationwide defender of jury nullification of law) to be his running mate. This would do several things:
1) It would force people to look up Dr. Paul Butler's website, and learn more about jury nullification of law, and how the drug war is racist. If people did this, there would be an instant debate over institutionalized racism.
2) It would make the establishment crap its pants in fear, because it would totally defeat arguments in favor of voting for Obama, if Obama did not instantly reverse course and follow through on his forgotten 2008 campaign promises on civil liberties. (Ending the CA and CO marijuana raids, etc..)
3) It would make Paul the ONLY viable contender against Obama from the Republican field. It would set Paul Butler up to whisper in Paul's ear on every issue where injustice is institutionalized, from an INSIDER's perspective. (Dr. Butler was a federal prosecutor, before he realized that moral people could not be prosecutors, having the integrity to then quit his job.)
4) It would definitively prove that Paul is not a racist, to those who won't let go of the newsletters made by infiltrators to his operation in the early 1990s.
5) It would make any criticism of Paul impossible, from those who know anything about anything, meaning, only the totally ignorant in society would be criticizing Paul. This is ALMOST the case right now, but it would increase this variable dramatically.
6) Some people have said that Jesse Ventura would be an insurance policy against assassination, because he's more radical than Paul. Well, Dr Paul Butler would be an even bigger "insurance policy" and it would be an insurance policy with a message: "No more victimless crime enforcement. No more institutionalized racism. Pardons for all victims of the unconstitutional, false-justice system. A black man who truly understands the issues black america faces today, who will do more than give lip service to issues of institutionalized racism in policing."
7) Obama would not be able to criticize one single move Paul made, from a position of legitimacy. This would set Dr. Butler free to pressure the whitehouse to do the right thing, or get booted from the whitehouse in November. That way, even if Paul lost against Obama, the changes would have already been made.
Again, Paul Butler's page is http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
I like these strategic ideas, because they ensure a large measure of victory, no matter the outcome of the elections (primary or general). Plus, they bring in giant new growth coalitions, that penetrate into society far, far, far deeper than the Republican primary alone can possibly reach. They also set Paul up to optimize a shift to the Libertarian Party, if he so desires.
Moreover, Dr. Paul Butler brings in civil libertarian Democrats by the score, by finally reaching those millions of Democrats for whom social tolerance is more important than socialist welfare projects.
Obviously, a conversation would need to be had between Paul and Dr. Butler, but it would be an unbelievably powerful coalition, with Dr. Butler making the rounds on the media. ...And even if it resulted in lost elections, it would result in dramatically more individual freedom, because it would result in a focus on the jury nullification of law message.
Now, I know it's not likely, given Dr. Butler's past (somewhat passive) support of social welfare programs, and given the likelihood of a Paul-Judge Andrew Napolitano run, if Paul got the GOP nomination. But it's still intriguing to me, because of the instant benefit it would confer to both parties, and to the message of liberty.
Feel free to copy and repost this post. This post has no copyright, but you can give me credit if you like. I want it to travel across the internet as a meme. "Undercutting the Establishment" Thanks, --Jake Witmer.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who favors clear accountability, and clear limits on government.
That said, if Paul somehow doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for and contributing to R. J. Harris at http://www.rjharris2012.com R. J. Harris is a principled Ron Paul supporter who fully understands a decentralized strategy of promoting liberty based on jury rights activism: bringing the power of freedom directly to the individual, without even winning a single election. Check out Ron Paul's "Power to the Jury" speech on youtube for more information about how this is accomplished, or visit http://www.jurorsforjustice.com or http://www.fija.org
One thing that Ron Paul could do to beat Romney and Obama would be to say that he'd consider Dr. Paul Butler (a Nationwide defender of jury nullification of law) to be his running mate. This would do several things:
1) It would force people to look up Dr. Paul Butler's website, and learn more about jury nullification of law, and how the drug war is racist. If people did this, there would be an instant debate over institutionalized racism.
2) It would make the establishment crap its pants in fear, because it would totally defeat arguments in favor of voting for Obama, if Obama did not instantly reverse course and follow through on his forgotten 2008 campaign promises on civil liberties. (Ending the CA and CO marijuana raids, etc..)
3) It would make Paul the ONLY viable contender against Obama from the Republican field. It would set Paul Butler up to whisper in Paul's ear on every issue where injustice is institutionalized, from an INSIDER's perspective. (Dr. Butler was a federal prosecutor, before he realized that moral people could not be prosecutors, having the integrity to then quit his job.)
4) It would definitively prove that Paul is not a racist, to those who won't let go of the newsletters made by infiltrators to his operation in the early 1990s.
5) It would make any criticism of Paul impossible, from those who know anything about anything, meaning, only the totally ignorant in society would be criticizing Paul. This is ALMOST the case right now, but it would increase this variable dramatically.
6) Some people have said that Jesse Ventura would be an insurance policy against assassination, because he's more radical than Paul. Well, Dr Paul Butler would be an even bigger "insurance policy" and it would be an insurance policy with a message: "No more victimless crime enforcement. No more institutionalized racism. Pardons for all victims of the unconstitutional, false-justice system. A black man who truly understands the issues black america faces today, who will do more than give lip service to issues of institutionalized racism in policing."
7) Obama would not be able to criticize one single move Paul made, from a position of legitimacy. This would set Dr. Butler free to pressure the whitehouse to do the right thing, or get booted from the whitehouse in November. That way, even if Paul lost against Obama, the changes would have already been made.
Again, Paul Butler's page is http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
I like these strategic ideas, because they ensure a large measure of victory, no matter the outcome of the elections (primary or general). Plus, they bring in giant new growth coalitions, that penetrate into society far, far, far deeper than the Republican primary alone can possibly reach. They also set Paul up to optimize a shift to the Libertarian Party, if he so desires.
Moreover, Dr. Paul Butler brings in civil libertarian Democrats by the score, by finally reaching those millions of Democrats for whom social tolerance is more important than socialist welfare projects.
Obviously, a conversation would need to be had between Paul and Dr. Butler, but it would be an unbelievably powerful coalition, with Dr. Butler making the rounds on the media. ...And even if it resulted in lost elections, it would result in dramatically more individual freedom, because it would result in a focus on the jury nullification of law message.
Now, I know it's not likely, given Dr. Butler's past (somewhat passive) support of social welfare programs, and given the likelihood of a Paul-Judge Andrew Napolitano run, if Paul got the GOP nomination. But it's still intriguing to me, because of the instant benefit it would confer to both parties, and to the message of liberty.
Feel free to copy and repost this post. This post has no copyright, but you can give me credit if you like. I want it to travel across the internet as a meme. "Undercutting the Establishment" Thanks, --Jake Witmer.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Jury Nullification is the Solution to the Problem of Tyranny
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/montana-jury-marijuana-mutiny_n_800074.html
Ron Paul and R. J. Harris advocate jury nullification of law, as the proper constitutional remedy for overbearing government tyranny. Keep in mind that you're under no obligation to comply with answering intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) "voir dire" (jury selection) questions from the prosecutor when you're called as a juror. Also keep in mind you'd be stupid/servile to plea bargain with a prosecutor if a jury couldn't be seated. You're always stupid not to fight with 100% of everything you have. Never accept injustice.
Ron Paul and R. J. Harris advocate jury nullification of law, as the proper constitutional remedy for overbearing government tyranny. Keep in mind that you're under no obligation to comply with answering intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) "voir dire" (jury selection) questions from the prosecutor when you're called as a juror. Also keep in mind you'd be stupid/servile to plea bargain with a prosecutor if a jury couldn't be seated. You're always stupid not to fight with 100% of everything you have. Never accept injustice.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Commentary on Ron Paul's Essay, "What Really Divides Us?"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
Let me first say that Ron Paul is right in this essay, but that there are some minor sins of omission. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and believe he's the only candidate worth supporting in the current GOP or Democratic races.
Ron Paul writes: "The real reason liberals hate the concept of states' right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government."
I hate it when libertarian politicians, who ostensibly wish to generate pro-freedom votes, paint everyone who identifies themselves with a 'suitcase word' (such as "liberal," or "conservative" -words that describe many phenomena, values, conditions, or independent variables) as possessing the most hateful formulation of that suitcase word.
Paul could equally correctly have written:
"The real reason conservatives love the concept of states' right has nothing to do with limiting the power of the federal government, but rather reflects a hostility toward minorities who would benefit from an even application of the 14th Amendment and true equality under the law." (And it would be just as wrong as slamming liberals for opposing states' right. In truth, implementing states' rights is a strategy for decentralizing power, not an end goal. As an end goal, only the preservation of individual rights is valid.)
The point isn't that Paul is wrong. Generally speaking, he's not. But he'd have been a lot more correct if he didn't paint all liberals with such a broad brush. He should have qualified his statement by saying "many liberals" or even "most liberals" or "the liberal establishment." He could have singled out ranting socialists who call themselves liberals, such as Chris Matthews (who apparently believes that all decentralists are racists). This would have left a little room in his statement for the minority of well-educated libertarian-leaning liberals (many of whom support his candidacy) to not feel like they were being painted "Obama blue." Moreover: is there any reason to alienate the "socially liberal" people who mistakenly voted for Obama because they incorrectly thought he would keep his campaign promise to stop raiding state medical marijuana collectives? Those people should vote for Paul!
In one of his most famous essays, F. A. Hayek (one of Ron Paul's heroes) states that the best word to describe his libertarian political views is still "liberal," given the history of the term. From Hayek's essay "Why I am Not A Conservative, point 6:" (also at Lew Rockwell.com):
"What I have said should suffice to explain why I do not regard myself as a conservative. Many people will feel, however, that the position which emerges is hardly what they used to call "liberal." I must, therefore, now face the question of whether this name is today the appropriate name for the party of liberty. I have already indicated that, though I have all my life described myself as a liberal, I have done so recently with increasing misgivings...
...In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/hayek1.html
I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that modern defenders of jury nullification and true equality under the law, such as Clay Conrad, David T. Hardy, and Paul Butler, might agree with Hayek.
I also wish Dr. Paul would have included more criticism of the drug laws, gun laws, and other mala prohibita that victimizes minorities in our society. You can't correct unfairness caused by government force until you identify it. To be fair, Paul has done this before on Nationwide TV, just not in this essay on the same subject. It would have made an excellent addition to the argument that in order to defeat racism, one needs to end institutionalized racism allowed by selective enforcement of mala prohibita.
Of course, that could fill ten times the space to fully explain and defend.
This criticism is minor, since Paul's main point is correct. Still, it's incomplete and too general. Now is the time for specifics, and for victory. I loved it when Paul was pointing out how racist the drug war is, on TV the other day, and how the drug war denies both property rights and equality under the law. He needs to do a lot more of that.
Every time he criticizes liberals, I'd also like to hear a criticism of conservatives. Neither position is legitimate, in its modern formulation.
Let me first say that Ron Paul is right in this essay, but that there are some minor sins of omission. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and believe he's the only candidate worth supporting in the current GOP or Democratic races.
Ron Paul writes: "The real reason liberals hate the concept of states' right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government."
I hate it when libertarian politicians, who ostensibly wish to generate pro-freedom votes, paint everyone who identifies themselves with a 'suitcase word' (such as "liberal," or "conservative" -words that describe many phenomena, values, conditions, or independent variables) as possessing the most hateful formulation of that suitcase word.
Paul could equally correctly have written:
"The real reason conservatives love the concept of states' right has nothing to do with limiting the power of the federal government, but rather reflects a hostility toward minorities who would benefit from an even application of the 14th Amendment and true equality under the law." (And it would be just as wrong as slamming liberals for opposing states' right. In truth, implementing states' rights is a strategy for decentralizing power, not an end goal. As an end goal, only the preservation of individual rights is valid.)
The point isn't that Paul is wrong. Generally speaking, he's not. But he'd have been a lot more correct if he didn't paint all liberals with such a broad brush. He should have qualified his statement by saying "many liberals" or even "most liberals" or "the liberal establishment." He could have singled out ranting socialists who call themselves liberals, such as Chris Matthews (who apparently believes that all decentralists are racists). This would have left a little room in his statement for the minority of well-educated libertarian-leaning liberals (many of whom support his candidacy) to not feel like they were being painted "Obama blue." Moreover: is there any reason to alienate the "socially liberal" people who mistakenly voted for Obama because they incorrectly thought he would keep his campaign promise to stop raiding state medical marijuana collectives? Those people should vote for Paul!
In one of his most famous essays, F. A. Hayek (one of Ron Paul's heroes) states that the best word to describe his libertarian political views is still "liberal," given the history of the term. From Hayek's essay "Why I am Not A Conservative, point 6:" (also at Lew Rockwell.com):
"What I have said should suffice to explain why I do not regard myself as a conservative. Many people will feel, however, that the position which emerges is hardly what they used to call "liberal." I must, therefore, now face the question of whether this name is today the appropriate name for the party of liberty. I have already indicated that, though I have all my life described myself as a liberal, I have done so recently with increasing misgivings...
...In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/hayek1.html
I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that modern defenders of jury nullification and true equality under the law, such as Clay Conrad, David T. Hardy, and Paul Butler, might agree with Hayek.
I also wish Dr. Paul would have included more criticism of the drug laws, gun laws, and other mala prohibita that victimizes minorities in our society. You can't correct unfairness caused by government force until you identify it. To be fair, Paul has done this before on Nationwide TV, just not in this essay on the same subject. It would have made an excellent addition to the argument that in order to defeat racism, one needs to end institutionalized racism allowed by selective enforcement of mala prohibita.
Of course, that could fill ten times the space to fully explain and defend.
This criticism is minor, since Paul's main point is correct. Still, it's incomplete and too general. Now is the time for specifics, and for victory. I loved it when Paul was pointing out how racist the drug war is, on TV the other day, and how the drug war denies both property rights and equality under the law. He needs to do a lot more of that.
Every time he criticizes liberals, I'd also like to hear a criticism of conservatives. Neither position is legitimate, in its modern formulation.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Meme Programming That, Once it Reaches a Certain Threshold, Results in A Free Society:
In the middle 1600s, a generally-intelligent biological supercomputer began reproducing and serving up the jury rights programming to fellow generally-intelligent biological supercomputers known as "human brains." The supercomputer did this by speaking the programs in audible symbols, and hoping that the symbols or "words" would be translated into useful neo-cortical patterns, inside the receiving brains. The serving supercomputer's name was John Lilburne or "Freeborn John" and one of the receiving supercomputers was Richard Overton. These supercomputers called themselves "levellers" because they believed that everyone should have "level" or "equal" rights under the law.
The most powerful supercomputers on the planet are still human brains, but sometimes we forget that. Worse, we forget that what brains are programmed with are the most important software programs on the planet. They are the software programs that determine whether we will go to war, go to the gas chamber, or go to the market to purchase what we want and need, in order to live. We forget the heroic meme programming that has provided us all with the expectation of equality under the law.
This afternoon, I gathered several of my favorite book-format meme programs into my hands. It was a stack of books about six inches thick. The collective page count of the stack is 1,366 pages (308-We The Jury, 311-Jury Nullification, 213-Let's Get Free, 225-Adventures in Legal Land, 309-Nullification). I thought about the contents of each book, and how they form, taken together, both a complete political philosophy and the knowledge necessary to implement that philosophy, nationwide. It struck me that, if even 10% of the USA read and absorbed the contents of these books, the resulting USA would be totally libertarian. ...We would have our freedom.
...Even if the total number of libertarians in the USA was not increased.
This would mean that you could walk down the street carrying a .308 rifle as well as a concealed side-arm in Chicago, and have little to fear from the police. You could also advertise a restaurant with no food handling license in that same currently unfree American city (being free to suffer the negative press and lawsuits if you made anyone sick). You could put a dash of cocaine on your nail, and sniff it into your nose, or relax in a hash bar smoking a marijuana cigar, and noone could or would bother you. You could legally pay for sex, and not worry that the person you were paying would then participate in your brutalization and arrest. You could open a business without any money for lawyers to wade through the bureaucracy (although it might still be good to have their services as soon as you could afford it, to avoid aggressive lawsuits from accident or controversy). You could offer to defend anyone in a court of law, without being licensed by the BAR. When politicians came by, insinuating that 'bad things might happen to your business' if you didn't contribute to their campaigns, you could simply keep your money and tell them all to go to hell. And for the more productive citizens among us? They could make us all wealthier than Bill Gates by selling currently "unapproved" (that is, prohibited) medical treatments, without begging (currently witheld) permission from the FDA and AMA for doing so. Instead of our paper money going down in value, our gold-backed money would steadily rise in value, in direct proportion to the amount of human thought and labor, planet-wide. ...We would all be living healthy lifespans beyond age 120, in something that looks like a utopia compared to what we're now experiencing.
All of this would be the result of roughly 20% of the USA's citizens being made aware of the contents of this small stack of books, now sitting on my desk. (This assumes, in the manner of Pareto's law, that roughly 20% of those 20% ---that is, 4% of the total--- would become active supporters of organized jury rights activism in some way.) A meme can be defined as "an easily-transmissible idea" or "an easily-transmissible philosophical idea." Essentially, a meme is a software virus for the mind (bad), or a useful software program for the mind (good). Hence, the title of this post. Since there are roughly 3,143 counties and county-equivalents in the USA, and the transmission of these ideas requires 2 "meme-serving" or "memenode" activists" per county courthouse (4 or more is better), if we estimate that there is one courthouse per county, we come up with a figure of 6,286 activists needed to make this plan functional.
The government school system has implanted bad memes in people's minds. The oversimplified views most people have of juries, generally constitute a "bad meme cluster." The impression that bad results emerge from juries (without the knowledge that those juries are judicially-misdirected and controlled) is another bad meme installed by government schoolteachers (or the authority and media figures they've programmed). These bad memes defend themselves, but only weakly. A presentation of the facts of history is generally enough to dislodge these views. Ultimately, a person's agreement with jury independence tends to revolve around their core beliefs: Is man always improving and making progress? Is the free individual worth protecting? If so, then the meme of jury rights clearly trumps the tyrant meme that believes judicially-instructed juries are optimal.
The book I am now in the process of writing adds strategic information to the material found in these books. It suggests a plan for getting the most useful information from those books into enough minds to result in exponentially-expanding jury nullification (to an appropriate level). (As jury nullification happens more and more frequently, it may become less necessary, because prosecutors may attempt to prosecute fewer victimless crime cases. Thus, the number of cases nullified always needs to be correlated to attempted victimless crime cases filed against defendants, in order to contain the most meaning, and be "spin proof.") This strategy will produce increases in liberty directly in proportion to activist effort. Until my book comes out, however, the following sources are the absolute most useful sources one can read.
So, if you wish to have a much greater degree of individual freedom, please seek out, purchase, and familiarize yourself with the following links:
Jury Rights Internet Links:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
--An essay that condenses the history of our lost jury rights
to something that fits on a single-page tri-fold pamphlet. This pamphlet should be handed out, outside of courthouses.
http://www.fija.org
--The Fully Informed Jury Association (Comprehensive Jury Rights Information)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s
1/3 Ron Paul presents "Power to the Jury" At Issue (NEFL)
(Congressman Ron Paul explains the power of individual members of the jury in this video. This video should be sent to anyone you know who will not read the books and online sources cited in this recommended reading list.)
http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
--Dr. Paul Butler's Jury Rights Activism website, "Jurors for Justice".
(A useful website that reveals the racism that always results from "mala prohibita," as well as a plan for its elimination.)
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35
--Abolitionist Lysander Spooner's "An Essay On the Trial by Jury"
(The abolitionist movement was the first pro-freedom movement in the USA to take advantage of jury rights activism. This brought on the Civil War, which then freed the slaves. Although the US government could have freed the slaves peacefully, by buying and then releasing them, the presence of informed Northern abolitionist juries made enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law impossible. Northern juries refused to punish free slaves, and thereby made slavery impossible to enforce, without walls and prisons capable of preventing slaves from running away, or being smuggled away.)
http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/groves/groves1.html
--A groundbreaking essay that talks about how politicians are self-selected for sociopathy. This relates to jury rights because the jury is NOT self-selected for sociopathy --proper juries are RANDOM, and contain a random assortment of morally-normal or normally-conscienced people. This explains why juries trend toward benevolence, and politicians trend toward democide and injustice.
http://fija.org/download/40/
--"Surviving Voir Dire" by Clay Conrad (How to get seated on the jury, if you understand the importance of doing so, and don't want to be removed during the unconstitutional "voir dire" or "jury selection.")
reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras
"The War On Cameras" --Radley Balko
(This groundbreaking article records the loss of freedom of the press in the USA. A free press [including the freedom to record video in public] is essential to the nonviolent spread of jury rights information. The state never gives up its right to record us in public, so if we don't have the equal right to record their agents, we lose the ability to prove ourselves innocent with exculpatory evidence of our own conduct. We also lose the ability to hold them accountable for incriminating evidence of their misconduct. While handing out jury rights information in front of local courthouses, it is therefore absolutely essential that you videotape what you are doing, and upload it to the net, and to interested media outlets. This amplifies your message, allowing it to reach places you cannot even imagine, online. When the police respond to you with force and threats, if they do so, they will look terrible, and lend sympathy to your cause. Since you get a free impression of credibility for dressing well while you are doing this, please wear a business suit [or nice dress if you are female] while handing out jury rights pamphlets. By presenting yourself well, in person and on video, you make the receivers of your message much more likely to engage in jury nullification, and that's the goal you are optimizing for. The more jury nullification, the more the establishment is forced to take your message seriously, and the less time they will wish to risk trying to prosecute innocent people.)
Essential Books:
The Triumph of Liberty --Jim Powell
(This book briefly covers the Lilburnian origin of English Jury Trials, and covers the major incremental advances in individual freedom through the prior 2,000 years. If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it.)
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (1988) --Clay Conrad
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." Highly recommended.)
We, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (1994) --Jeffrey Abramson
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." There is significant overlap with the prior book on the same subject, but it also covers a great deal of new ground.)
Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice --Dr. Paul Butler
(Covers new ground, in terms of jury nullification and jury rights outreach and activism. Definitely worth reading for the self-educated juror. Goes further into jury veto as a tool to be used against institutionalized racism than the other books do.)
Adventures in Legal Land --Marc Stevens
(A detailed explanation of the legal theory that is compatible with jury nullification, including a step-by-step explanation of a proper legal response to aggression from the courts. ie: Directions regarding what a pro se defendant should say, if he wants to increase his chances beyond throwing himself on the mercy of the jury. Absolutely essential for people who will risk arrest by performing organized and coordinated jury rights activism.)
Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century --Tom Woods
(Extending the defense of individual liberty into the political structure. In short, in stead of getting individuals to refuse to punish other individuals, this book shows how States can refuse to punish their citizens by rejecting federal law. This is the political extension of a libertarian society that has already embraced jury nullification of law.)
The most powerful supercomputers on the planet are still human brains, but sometimes we forget that. Worse, we forget that what brains are programmed with are the most important software programs on the planet. They are the software programs that determine whether we will go to war, go to the gas chamber, or go to the market to purchase what we want and need, in order to live. We forget the heroic meme programming that has provided us all with the expectation of equality under the law.
This afternoon, I gathered several of my favorite book-format meme programs into my hands. It was a stack of books about six inches thick. The collective page count of the stack is 1,366 pages (308-We The Jury, 311-Jury Nullification, 213-Let's Get Free, 225-Adventures in Legal Land, 309-Nullification). I thought about the contents of each book, and how they form, taken together, both a complete political philosophy and the knowledge necessary to implement that philosophy, nationwide. It struck me that, if even 10% of the USA read and absorbed the contents of these books, the resulting USA would be totally libertarian. ...We would have our freedom.
...Even if the total number of libertarians in the USA was not increased.
This would mean that you could walk down the street carrying a .308 rifle as well as a concealed side-arm in Chicago, and have little to fear from the police. You could also advertise a restaurant with no food handling license in that same currently unfree American city (being free to suffer the negative press and lawsuits if you made anyone sick). You could put a dash of cocaine on your nail, and sniff it into your nose, or relax in a hash bar smoking a marijuana cigar, and noone could or would bother you. You could legally pay for sex, and not worry that the person you were paying would then participate in your brutalization and arrest. You could open a business without any money for lawyers to wade through the bureaucracy (although it might still be good to have their services as soon as you could afford it, to avoid aggressive lawsuits from accident or controversy). You could offer to defend anyone in a court of law, without being licensed by the BAR. When politicians came by, insinuating that 'bad things might happen to your business' if you didn't contribute to their campaigns, you could simply keep your money and tell them all to go to hell. And for the more productive citizens among us? They could make us all wealthier than Bill Gates by selling currently "unapproved" (that is, prohibited) medical treatments, without begging (currently witheld) permission from the FDA and AMA for doing so. Instead of our paper money going down in value, our gold-backed money would steadily rise in value, in direct proportion to the amount of human thought and labor, planet-wide. ...We would all be living healthy lifespans beyond age 120, in something that looks like a utopia compared to what we're now experiencing.
All of this would be the result of roughly 20% of the USA's citizens being made aware of the contents of this small stack of books, now sitting on my desk. (This assumes, in the manner of Pareto's law, that roughly 20% of those 20% ---that is, 4% of the total--- would become active supporters of organized jury rights activism in some way.) A meme can be defined as "an easily-transmissible idea" or "an easily-transmissible philosophical idea." Essentially, a meme is a software virus for the mind (bad), or a useful software program for the mind (good). Hence, the title of this post. Since there are roughly 3,143 counties and county-equivalents in the USA, and the transmission of these ideas requires 2 "meme-serving" or "memenode" activists" per county courthouse (4 or more is better), if we estimate that there is one courthouse per county, we come up with a figure of 6,286 activists needed to make this plan functional.
The government school system has implanted bad memes in people's minds. The oversimplified views most people have of juries, generally constitute a "bad meme cluster." The impression that bad results emerge from juries (without the knowledge that those juries are judicially-misdirected and controlled) is another bad meme installed by government schoolteachers (or the authority and media figures they've programmed). These bad memes defend themselves, but only weakly. A presentation of the facts of history is generally enough to dislodge these views. Ultimately, a person's agreement with jury independence tends to revolve around their core beliefs: Is man always improving and making progress? Is the free individual worth protecting? If so, then the meme of jury rights clearly trumps the tyrant meme that believes judicially-instructed juries are optimal.
The book I am now in the process of writing adds strategic information to the material found in these books. It suggests a plan for getting the most useful information from those books into enough minds to result in exponentially-expanding jury nullification (to an appropriate level). (As jury nullification happens more and more frequently, it may become less necessary, because prosecutors may attempt to prosecute fewer victimless crime cases. Thus, the number of cases nullified always needs to be correlated to attempted victimless crime cases filed against defendants, in order to contain the most meaning, and be "spin proof.") This strategy will produce increases in liberty directly in proportion to activist effort. Until my book comes out, however, the following sources are the absolute most useful sources one can read.
So, if you wish to have a much greater degree of individual freedom, please seek out, purchase, and familiarize yourself with the following links:
Jury Rights Internet Links:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
--An essay that condenses the history of our lost jury rights
to something that fits on a single-page tri-fold pamphlet. This pamphlet should be handed out, outside of courthouses.
http://www.fija.org
--The Fully Informed Jury Association (Comprehensive Jury Rights Information)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s
1/3 Ron Paul presents "Power to the Jury" At Issue (NEFL)
(Congressman Ron Paul explains the power of individual members of the jury in this video. This video should be sent to anyone you know who will not read the books and online sources cited in this recommended reading list.)
http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
--Dr. Paul Butler's Jury Rights Activism website, "Jurors for Justice".
(A useful website that reveals the racism that always results from "mala prohibita," as well as a plan for its elimination.)
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35
--Abolitionist Lysander Spooner's "An Essay On the Trial by Jury"
(The abolitionist movement was the first pro-freedom movement in the USA to take advantage of jury rights activism. This brought on the Civil War, which then freed the slaves. Although the US government could have freed the slaves peacefully, by buying and then releasing them, the presence of informed Northern abolitionist juries made enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law impossible. Northern juries refused to punish free slaves, and thereby made slavery impossible to enforce, without walls and prisons capable of preventing slaves from running away, or being smuggled away.)
http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/groves/groves1.html
--A groundbreaking essay that talks about how politicians are self-selected for sociopathy. This relates to jury rights because the jury is NOT self-selected for sociopathy --proper juries are RANDOM, and contain a random assortment of morally-normal or normally-conscienced people. This explains why juries trend toward benevolence, and politicians trend toward democide and injustice.
http://fija.org/download/40/
--"Surviving Voir Dire" by Clay Conrad (How to get seated on the jury, if you understand the importance of doing so, and don't want to be removed during the unconstitutional "voir dire" or "jury selection.")
reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras
"The War On Cameras" --Radley Balko
(This groundbreaking article records the loss of freedom of the press in the USA. A free press [including the freedom to record video in public] is essential to the nonviolent spread of jury rights information. The state never gives up its right to record us in public, so if we don't have the equal right to record their agents, we lose the ability to prove ourselves innocent with exculpatory evidence of our own conduct. We also lose the ability to hold them accountable for incriminating evidence of their misconduct. While handing out jury rights information in front of local courthouses, it is therefore absolutely essential that you videotape what you are doing, and upload it to the net, and to interested media outlets. This amplifies your message, allowing it to reach places you cannot even imagine, online. When the police respond to you with force and threats, if they do so, they will look terrible, and lend sympathy to your cause. Since you get a free impression of credibility for dressing well while you are doing this, please wear a business suit [or nice dress if you are female] while handing out jury rights pamphlets. By presenting yourself well, in person and on video, you make the receivers of your message much more likely to engage in jury nullification, and that's the goal you are optimizing for. The more jury nullification, the more the establishment is forced to take your message seriously, and the less time they will wish to risk trying to prosecute innocent people.)
Essential Books:
The Triumph of Liberty --Jim Powell
(This book briefly covers the Lilburnian origin of English Jury Trials, and covers the major incremental advances in individual freedom through the prior 2,000 years. If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it.)
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (1988) --Clay Conrad
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." Highly recommended.)
We, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (1994) --Jeffrey Abramson
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." There is significant overlap with the prior book on the same subject, but it also covers a great deal of new ground.)
Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice --Dr. Paul Butler
(Covers new ground, in terms of jury nullification and jury rights outreach and activism. Definitely worth reading for the self-educated juror. Goes further into jury veto as a tool to be used against institutionalized racism than the other books do.)
Adventures in Legal Land --Marc Stevens
(A detailed explanation of the legal theory that is compatible with jury nullification, including a step-by-step explanation of a proper legal response to aggression from the courts. ie: Directions regarding what a pro se defendant should say, if he wants to increase his chances beyond throwing himself on the mercy of the jury. Absolutely essential for people who will risk arrest by performing organized and coordinated jury rights activism.)
Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century --Tom Woods
(Extending the defense of individual liberty into the political structure. In short, in stead of getting individuals to refuse to punish other individuals, this book shows how States can refuse to punish their citizens by rejecting federal law. This is the political extension of a libertarian society that has already embraced jury nullification of law.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
