From Murray Rothbard’s book, “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto“; “The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently. And this was also a society where not only the courts and the law were largely libertarian, but where they operated within a purely state-less and libertarian society. This was ancient Ireland—an Ireland which persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a “primitive” society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written: “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice. . . . There was no trace of State-administered justice.”
Almost all the Judges of our world have become politicians. Being primarily selected by politicians, our Judges have become purely rubber stamps for the political class within an oligarchy that controls the system.
The penal system has become a profit center, as have the courts and even law enforcement, despite the constitutional provisions to protect Citizens from excessive fines and injustices.
It’s been approximately 235 years since our Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified and this issue is still being bantered around by our Judges. Why was this issue not already long ago resolved? It appears they finally got it right but will it work in solving the many injustices?
From the Attorney representing the the Appellant. “Increasingly, our justice system has come to rely on fines, fees and forfeitures to fund law enforcement agencies rather than having to answer to elected officials for their budgets,” said Scott Bullock, the president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, which represented Timbs. “This is not just an ominous trend; it is a dangerous one.”
This Attorney however acts like this is a recent development, yet this has been going on since I can remember dating back to the 1970s.
From a Washington Post article: “Groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned the Supreme Court of abuses, with the chamber touting a national study that found “60 percent of the 1,400 municipal and county agencies surveyed across the country relied on forfeiture profits as a ‘necessary’ part of their budget.”
This is just one issue where the injustices have become so flagrant, that the Courts and system are finally doing something about it but will it really work? Sadly millions of stories like this of the abuses and injustices served by those in power abound our world and are too numerous to expose here. If you would like to tell your story, hit the link sign in and hit the link “Injustices” and you can tell your story.
The organization envisioned to solve the vast amounts of injustice is our world is predicated on the use of a Voluntary Association of Jurists (VAJ) by a vast number of Citizens of any society. Its primarily mission will be to review those appellate court decisions to establish a majority opinion as to both the quality of the opinions (dissenting and concurring) of the government Judges and provide superior decisions when those decisions are found to be weak in content, validity or any other elements or merits of determination of constitutionality or it’s intent. A sort of blend between a direct democratic decision-making system, similar to the Swiss, and the voluntary association aspects of ancient Irish Celts.
Obviously, no small task but one can see the very interesting possibilities and implications if say an Appellate, three Judge Panel and several thousand people as a plurality from the VAJ, differ in opinion on the various elements of a constitutional issue.
From Wiki: Jurist (a word coming from medieval Latin) is someone who studies and teaches jurisprudence (theory of law). Such a person can work as an academic, a legal writer, or an eminent judge (that is because judges in high positions shape and make law). Thus jurist, someone who studies, analyses and comments on law, stands in contrast with lawyer, someone who applies law on behalf of clients and thinks about it in practical terms.
The system envisioned will incorporate the highest quality aspect of current communication technologies, conferencing, encryption, private and public blogs and computerized voting with hard copy verifications as a checks and balance to determine both the concurring and dissenting opinions on Constitutional issues in a head to head social competition and experiment, against the current government system. The system will attempt to provide superior judicial decisions to those of the existing government Judges and gain the eventual favor of public opinion.
The experimental concept is that a large number of Jurists, if property organized, could and would do a much better job at observing our constitutional rule of law, and better provide the Citizens of our country with the logical, legal and ethical rationale for their decisions, than our government Judges have done over the last 235 years.
The question is, how many of you out there, would be willing to get a number of family, friends, acquaintances, business associates, etc. to “so-call” sponsor you to become a Jurist. Have them provide an affidavit that they think you would be good at this. The number of sponsors has not yet been determined because we first need to have an Association of Jurists. Initially anyone who thinks that they are all qualified to assist are welcome. If the system actually ever took off and became a common household name and the decisions were accepted by a huge numbers of Citizens, one could see the potential ramifications of such as system.
One of the additional theories of this plan is that when more people participate in any activity, that each individual should have to do less, and we could actually lower the cost of justice, by having more people involved in especially the area of being the final arbiter, if there really is such a thing, as decisions are constantly being challenged.
We are talking about trying to change the basic elements of judicial systems, that have always advocated politically picked Judges, that has been run similarly by monarchs, oligarchies, aristocracies, theocracies, etc. over thousands of years, that have not in many people opinions, provided the quality of justice necessary to preserve a free and civil society.
Compare the above potential decisions with those, 1 to 9 Judges, “that must be BAR members” and who are appointed by political methods, at producing decision(s) when deciding Constitutional issues. The more people participating, that are qualified on the complex issues, should provide better overall dissenting and concurring opinions, than the “few” now in the positions that are essentially political power. We cannot of course initially have a lawful method of determining who or who are not Jurists, but we can select qualified people from around the country to help us test the software and computer system once it is created. We believe that it would be good to attempt to test the system on past or current current cases being mitigated. The various proposed elements of the system can be read at the Summary tab. This is an experimental software system, with many of it’s components already in existence and use in many applications today, but we will need to put them together and into a easy usable system. Whether we can get the public to embrace our system is really as much of the experiment as the increased number of Jurists and how to best organize them. Switzerland has utilized the direct democratic approach since the founding of the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1291. http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/ The origins of Switzerland’s modern system of Direct Democracy with formalized opinion polls and frequent referendums lie in the experimental phase of democracy in the 19th century when Switzerland was surrounded by monarchies on the European continent that showed little to no enthusiasm for democracy.
Most people prefer to believe that their political leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is fraught with deception and corruption, the citizen has to choose how he or she will live under such conditions. To take action against a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To choose to do nothing is to acquiesce one’s self-image of being socially conscious, caring and principled. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is “not” designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give cowards an excuse not to think or do anything at all.
Until such time as our world begins to focus on the “solutions” to problems that have the greatest social effects, we will forever be held hostage by the ruling elites; political and economic powers who collude and corrupt the system for personal gain. The greatest of all political and economic power of any nation is maintained and controlled by the Judiciary. The judiciary controls by both prosecution and determinations what laws are lawful and what laws are unconstitutional, therefore, despite what people believe, they control the Rule of Law. If the Judicial system is full of collusion and corruption, as almost all are throughout the world, then until such time as we solve this problem, all other attempts of solving various other social problems will be continuously corrupted by the judicial process. All government legislative and administrative actions require or force judicial review by the opposition of such law(s) and it is at that point that the final rule of law is created by just a few people at the highest levels within the Judiciary. Instead of a rule of law, we are instead living under a law by those who rule and it has not worked well for the majority of the world throughout history. – PERHAPS it’s time to CHANGE.
Many have dedicated their lives to the advancement of the human experience. Like many before, it is a bitter-sweet battle, as you meet many great individuals along the way. However, if you are one of the lucky ones, you are able to learn that the system is severely rigged and corrupted. The ruling class has since time in memoria, subjected the majority of society to a harsh and bitter existence for self-serving purposes, having blessed “themselves” by God knows who. The devil perhaps. The Salem Witch Hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust and the Christian Crusades are but a small reminder of the atrocities committed by devious individuals in political and economic power. They are however able to stay in power by the Judiciary who condone the laws that usurp liberty, that redistribute wealth for personal benefit and that protect those in power from legal recourse. The “Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy” and they will use this power against anyone who resists. When the majority is willing and makes the effort to take back control of the judiciary, I believe that it will begin a new age of peace and prosperity yet seen by our world.