Restructuring the legal system

The new legal system should be based on this simple little line.

Do not violate anyone’s right to life, liberty, or property.

Any law that goes further than that is against natural rights.

reply to post by Misoir


I would include common sense in there as well..otherwise I quite agree..

reply to post by tribewilder


You cannot enforce common sense.

Originally posted by Misoir
The new legal system should be based on this simple little line.

Do not violate anyone’s right to life, liberty, or property.

Any law that goes further than that is against natural rights.

This is essentially why the Constitution was written. It's unfortunate a document was needed to outline what everyone knows to be right. The question I have is this- can a new legal system be put in place in the USA without a period of anarchy first?

Not going to happen because of the money factor. The way the US legal system is now is a great money making machine.

Originally posted by jrod
Not going to happen because of the money factor. The way the US legal system is now is a great money making machine.

Actually, it's not.

It prevents the creation of immense wealth by prohibiting average joes from EVER owning or operating a profitable enterprise. It removes millions of wage earners from the economy through incarceration for non-crimes.

It is the most bloated, unjust system of so-called law ever created, and when the system does collapse we will see a dark ages unlike any other as generations of people pass down the campfire stories of legal horror.

It parasitizes the body politic, enriching the cronies while bleeding the few remaining workingmen.

If the definition of a crime is to provoke conflict, then the purpose of the law is to resolve that conflict.

Conflict should not be confused with competition, but aid it for a fair and level playing field. As in sport it is the role of the umpire to make sure a good game is played by helping to limit injuries and deciding on controversies.

Originally posted by Misoir
The new legal system should be based on this simple little line.

Do not violate anyone’s right to life, liberty, or property.

Any law that goes further than that is against natural rights.

I agree with you, however, in a large, diverse country such as the one we live in, this is not possible.

The right to life, liberty and property is subjective.

not to mention, if this government has taught us anything, its that if terms arent clearly defined, they will be bent and used against the people. Just look at the recent crash.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


That is because you have been trained to think everything on the widest scale possible, that way you will think an implementation of strict individual freedom is impossible.

This of the United States as nothing more than thousands of small localities, there you go. Implement law on the very local level and enforce on the very local level.

The more decentralization the better.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

That is because you have been trained to think everything on the widest scale possible, that way you will think an implementation of strict individual freedom is impossible.

This of the United States as nothing more than thousands of small localities, there you go. Implement law on the very local level and enforce on the very local level.

The more decentralization the better.

No, its because I am a student of history.

Conditioning would be thinking that I need government control to live happily. COMMON Fu**ING sense says that if in every corner of history those with power have used it against those without,m it will most likely continue, and that generalized statements of rights cannot work.
As long as there is a power structure, there will be those inside of it trying to manipulate the people using it.

The original US constitution was written for a country with a population of a million, not 500. Which is why it is so easily circumvented by those in power right now.

What you are speaking of is going to a true republic, which is what this nation should be. States rights. But to say you are going to govern a nation of millions with 3 words that you wont even define is silly, naive, and downright unrealistic.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
What you are speaking of is going to a true republic, which is what this nation should be. States rights. But to say you are going to govern a nation of millions with 3 words that you wont even define is silly, naive, and downright unrealistic.

if ye want to just keep on doing the same old things we keep the same results. doing things differently always looks silly, naive and downright unrealistic.

But, who decides what constitutes a "violation" of those rights?

Will there be an escalating scale of "violations" and will the punishments for those "violations", also, be on an escalating scale?

Will there be a judiciary to decide guilt or innocence? Who will carry out the punishments imposed?

Will the same standard be used to establish regulatory matters, as well?

Originally posted by WTFover
But, who decides what constitutes a "violation" of those rights?

Will there be an escalating scale of "violations" and will the punishments for those "violations", also, be on an escalating scale?

Will there be a judiciary to decide guilt or innocence? Who will carry out the punishments imposed?

Will the same standard be used to establish regulatory matters, as well?

edit on 26-12-2010 by WTFover because: Spelling error

I agree with you on this 100%

To grossly exaggerate the conundrum - it takes one second to press the "button" unleashing a nuclear weapon -
did this crime against humanity occur when this weapon hit its mark or did it occur well before the countless number of souls perished? Is the button pusher the guilty party, the weapon designers, decision maker who ordered the act, the masses who empowered the decision maker?

Or

are the people who received the weapon guilty for being in the path of the weapon? or are they guilty because they failed to create a defense against such an attack?

I bet you a whole lotta money - there will be little consensus on who is right and wrong depending upon who you ask. Hell, look at the on going civil war debate - how long has it been?

What I do not like about this is it completely strips out the ethical considerations which gave birth to law and redress in the first place. A dead man cannot name his killer, nor can he be compensated for his soul.
I submit that a dead person is dead and can care not for anything either way, so what is the point to begin with?

We could also create a law of conduct to that reads " do not starve, don't get sick, avoid accidents and murderers - " of course we know this would not fend off death or cultivate eternity. However on paper this
is a recipe for eternal life, it covers all the conceptual bases. I think the principle in the OP is set up the same way -

Originally posted by RossCroft

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
What you are speaking of is going to a true republic, which is what this nation should be. States rights. But to say you are going to govern a nation of millions with 3 words that you wont even define is silly, naive, and downright unrealistic.

if ye want to just keep on doing the same old things we keep the same results. doing things differently always looks silly, naive and downright unrealistic.

What would be different is a system of governance that has the power structure built around the people, not a system.

You want to talk about the same old thing? Try governing with 3 words. You will see the same old thing. As is medievil times redux.

Originally posted by Misoir
The new legal system should be based on this simple little line.
Do not violate anyone’s right to life, liberty, or property.
Any law that goes further than that is against natural rights.

Simple-minded, really. Such a "system" is essentially anarchic; violations could never be punished: enforcement would require a deprivation of the actor's right to life, liberty or property, and would itself be "unlawful."

Focusing on "natural rights" without a complementary focus on responsibility is what has gotten us where we are today. With every right comes a responsibility. THAT is natural law.

Once the Private Grand Jury was removed, was the downfall of the US Justice system.

Hell, nowadays a prosecutor can convince their Grand Juries to prosecute a ham sandwich.

Also, a "Judge" can tell the jury what the LAW is. What the funny part is, a jury is to decide the LAW. NOT the Judge. That is the purpose of a jury.

I have had the privilege to be on two juries. It is a privilege, those that attempt to thwart their duty to reside on a jury, are the worst of the worst, IMO, of citizens. It is your sovereign DUTY to be part of the judicial system. Or would you rather have a KING decide your guilt or innocence. Those that attempt to deflect their serving on a jury; are the ones that should serve. Because more than likely they know the problems of the system, that is why they do not want to be part of the corruption.

Be in a jury, at least once, it may open your eyes to some truths, that many of your fellow citizens take their responsibilities to heart.

reply to post by jdub297


Hey, have you served on a jury?
It is quite enlightening to see the discussions are a LOT like the ones we have here.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
I have interviewed dozens of juries; hundreds of jurors. I often find that they are much smarter than we give them credit for, and are amazingly adept at cutting through the BS to find the truth.

On the other hand, jurors with inadequate guidance from the Court frequently become lost, confused and unable to perform their duty. You are lucky to have been in courts that supported your obligations.

Thank you for your service.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Well, the one jury was kinda funny, the dude we elected to fill out the paperwork filled out the wrong one. We went out and gave it to the judge and then he had to send us back in. It was kinda funny.

The judge on the other asked if we would stay to be interviewed on our decision. The lawyers wanted to ask some questions. 3 of us left and never found out what it was about. Probably just wanted to know our thinking on the decision.

Both decisions not guilty. I read once that a large percentage of all cases that go to trial are found not guilty. Always wondered why anyone will not go to trial on things. Of course the DA's I am sure use the plea bargaining like a hammer. If you go to trial you could get this................type thing.