Joe Kelley
Administrator
|
Regardless of the differences between our 2 viewpoints, the fact remains that people volunteer to defend themselves.
What do you think is an effective way to accomplish the goal of voluntary mutual defense?
I think that trial by jury according to the common law researched by Lysander Spooner is the reasonable method of reaching the goal of voluntary mutual defense.
You can steal, counterfeit, cover-up, hide, abuse, destroy, fake, and fraud voluntary mutual defense known as the common law with trial by jury all you want, within your power to do so, meanwhile I will continue my efforts to set the record straighter.
Example:
This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.
It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government.
It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people.
That is not (as far as I can decode your messages) what you consider to be the common law.
I think that many people share (agree with) what I think is your working version of the common law (the counterfeit version) including many people who agree with the counterfeit interpretation of what is written in The Bill of Rights as those Amendments attempted to amend the fraudulent Constitution of 1787.
There is no cause for me, at this point, to ask again for simple answers to simple questions, as the routine of evasion on your part is clearly established.
|
1 2 3 4 
