KPatrick
Regular Member
imported post
So I've noticed on this board (and others) that there is a contingent of people who believe most felons should be executed. I wonder why these people trust the legal system so much? This is the same government that shot a boy in the back and a nursing mother in the head in Idaho for a piece of steel they said was to short.
The same government which burned down a church (even if it isn't my religion, I know the First Amendment applies to them too). Then to cover their asses they cry 'child abuse' allegations, which the local sheriff denied.
This is the government that is trying to disarm us.
And here we have some people that are willing to turn over the very power of life and death to these people! I would like to invite you to read an article I wrote about another why to have a system of justice. I'm not asking you to agree or sign on, just think.
---------------
Common Law Justice: A Freemarket approach.
I would consider myself a "philosophical anarchist," as I don't believe any man has the right to rule over another; nor can one man represent any but himself.
However, a true anarchy requires a moral and ethical, and above all: a well-educated people. Since this is unlikely to occur in the near future, I will support the most limited form of government possible, and always work at decreasing the scope of that government.
Although that's my philosophy, my politics tend to divide things up this way: Authoritarian <---> Libertarian; i.e. who uses forces to enforce their ideas on others? I'm a voluntarist, I don't believe that it is moral to force someone to do something they do not want to do. All associations should be voluntary. This precludes some basic notions on government, such as taxes, fines, levies, etc.
I like the common law system of justice, where there aren't "punishments" per se, for crimes; as the collective use of force in any means other than defense is always wrong.
There are three basic Laws of Common Law:
- Do not injure another human in his or her life, liberty, or lawfully acquired property,
- Do not unlawfully posses the lawfully acquired property of another,
- Do not contract in fraud.
This covers all the bases, and anything else, is nanny-state mentality.
So, if you are charged with a crime, let's say horse-stealing, and the common law court, made up of people from your community and the community of the victim, finds you guilty.
They decide adequate repayment is required. You are asked to return the horse, and help the man from whom you stole do whatever the job of the horse was for 2 months without pay; so that you understand the value of what you took, and the loss with which the victim dealt. If you agree, then sentence is carried out, and everyone goes home happy.
If you disagree, you won't be forced to do these things; not by Police or Bailiffs, or any group, but you will labeled an outlaw. That means, that since you disrespected the Rights of another, your Rights will no longer be protected by the community or by the Law.
You are outside the system of law. So, if the man from whom you stole comes to collect his horse with 15 of his buddies, and the price of the labor he lost in your hide: so be it. No crime can be committed, since you are outside the scope of the law.
If he decides to let it go, so be it. But, if a year from now, someone steals from you, then no crime has been committed, since the Law does not protect/respect you. Or, if someone kills you, the same is true. No crime.
If you want to be protected by the Law, you must in turn protect it.
It's not a light decision by any means, but in has in it reform, punishment, and it dissuades people from infringing on the Rights of others.
If, however, you decide after a few months, that living this way is not good, and you want to make remunerations, then the court reconvenes. You give back the horse, work the two months, plus some extra sentence for the delay of justice; and after it's all been worked out, then the community opens its arms to you and you are welcomed back in; and your Rights are again protected by the Law and by the community.
This is a "free-market" form of justice, which appeals to me a lot. I think the smaller the governing structure, the better. I want my servant governors to have to live with me, trade with me, count on my trade and goodwill. They need to know what life's like for the people their decisions effect. They need to be subject to those same consequences.
It's a voluntary association. You don't have to be a part of it. It's not about the control of territory or land or jurisdiction. It's in the minds and hearts of the people.
So, what would happen if instead of having to fight a horrid bloody conflict to be left alone by the men and women who sit in the seats of Washington, doing business as the United States of America; what if instead we simply began to live and behave, and institute our own forms of self-governance?
Our greatest weapon just might be ignoring them, and going on about our lives as Freemen and Freewomen. Think about it.
--- Kevin Patrick
So I've noticed on this board (and others) that there is a contingent of people who believe most felons should be executed. I wonder why these people trust the legal system so much? This is the same government that shot a boy in the back and a nursing mother in the head in Idaho for a piece of steel they said was to short.
The same government which burned down a church (even if it isn't my religion, I know the First Amendment applies to them too). Then to cover their asses they cry 'child abuse' allegations, which the local sheriff denied.
This is the government that is trying to disarm us.
And here we have some people that are willing to turn over the very power of life and death to these people! I would like to invite you to read an article I wrote about another why to have a system of justice. I'm not asking you to agree or sign on, just think.
---------------
Common Law Justice: A Freemarket approach.
I would consider myself a "philosophical anarchist," as I don't believe any man has the right to rule over another; nor can one man represent any but himself.
However, a true anarchy requires a moral and ethical, and above all: a well-educated people. Since this is unlikely to occur in the near future, I will support the most limited form of government possible, and always work at decreasing the scope of that government.
Although that's my philosophy, my politics tend to divide things up this way: Authoritarian <---> Libertarian; i.e. who uses forces to enforce their ideas on others? I'm a voluntarist, I don't believe that it is moral to force someone to do something they do not want to do. All associations should be voluntary. This precludes some basic notions on government, such as taxes, fines, levies, etc.
I like the common law system of justice, where there aren't "punishments" per se, for crimes; as the collective use of force in any means other than defense is always wrong.
There are three basic Laws of Common Law:
- Do not injure another human in his or her life, liberty, or lawfully acquired property,
- Do not unlawfully posses the lawfully acquired property of another,
- Do not contract in fraud.
This covers all the bases, and anything else, is nanny-state mentality.
So, if you are charged with a crime, let's say horse-stealing, and the common law court, made up of people from your community and the community of the victim, finds you guilty.
They decide adequate repayment is required. You are asked to return the horse, and help the man from whom you stole do whatever the job of the horse was for 2 months without pay; so that you understand the value of what you took, and the loss with which the victim dealt. If you agree, then sentence is carried out, and everyone goes home happy.
If you disagree, you won't be forced to do these things; not by Police or Bailiffs, or any group, but you will labeled an outlaw. That means, that since you disrespected the Rights of another, your Rights will no longer be protected by the community or by the Law.
You are outside the system of law. So, if the man from whom you stole comes to collect his horse with 15 of his buddies, and the price of the labor he lost in your hide: so be it. No crime can be committed, since you are outside the scope of the law.
If he decides to let it go, so be it. But, if a year from now, someone steals from you, then no crime has been committed, since the Law does not protect/respect you. Or, if someone kills you, the same is true. No crime.
If you want to be protected by the Law, you must in turn protect it.
It's not a light decision by any means, but in has in it reform, punishment, and it dissuades people from infringing on the Rights of others.
If, however, you decide after a few months, that living this way is not good, and you want to make remunerations, then the court reconvenes. You give back the horse, work the two months, plus some extra sentence for the delay of justice; and after it's all been worked out, then the community opens its arms to you and you are welcomed back in; and your Rights are again protected by the Law and by the community.
This is a "free-market" form of justice, which appeals to me a lot. I think the smaller the governing structure, the better. I want my servant governors to have to live with me, trade with me, count on my trade and goodwill. They need to know what life's like for the people their decisions effect. They need to be subject to those same consequences.
It's a voluntary association. You don't have to be a part of it. It's not about the control of territory or land or jurisdiction. It's in the minds and hearts of the people.
So, what would happen if instead of having to fight a horrid bloody conflict to be left alone by the men and women who sit in the seats of Washington, doing business as the United States of America; what if instead we simply began to live and behave, and institute our own forms of self-governance?
Our greatest weapon just might be ignoring them, and going on about our lives as Freemen and Freewomen. Think about it.
--- Kevin Patrick
