Rand Paul handling business on CNN right now (video added)

[tremendoustie]

derive the principle of trial by jury from first principles.

There is no inherent right to trial by jury. Trial by jury is a practical invention, in order to reduce the chances of injustice being done. Juries are most useful in the context of a monopoly state, because they reduce the chances of corrupt judges acting unilaterally.

Morally speaking, if a person is guilty of committing harm, they owe restitution, regardless of if they are ever tried. And, if they are innocent, they do not owe restitution, even if they are tried and found guilty.

Good men do not impose punishments without having done everything practical to ensure they are not committing an injustice. To that end, they are likely to employ open trials, in which all available evidence is considered (and perhaps including a jury).

 

[Galileo Galilei]

There is no inherent right to trial by jury. Trial by jury is a practical invention, in order to reduce the chances of injustice being done. Juries are most useful in the context of a monopoly state, because they reduce the chances of corrupt judges acting unilaterally.

Morally speaking, if a person is guilty of committing harm, they owe restitution, regardless of if they are ever tried. And, if they are innocent, they do not owe restitution, even if they are tried and found guilty.

Good men do not impose punishments without having done everything practical to ensure they are not committing an injustice. To that end, they are likely to employ open trials, in which all available evidence is considered (and perhaps including a jury).

OK, so you are saying people do not have the right to trial by jury. Now I know were we stand.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Simple question, Rolf. Just kindly answer the question. Thanks!

The civil rights act conveyed no rights and has no authority. It merely codified self-evident higher law.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The civil rights act conveyed no rights and has no authority. It merely codified self-evident higher law.

Oh, brother. So you're not going to answer the question, you're going to be like a politician. That makes me sick, man. That's cowardice.

What you've said here, in your weaselly way, is that the self-evident higher law that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 embodied trumps the Constitution. In other words, you are claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has more authority than the Constitution, embodying such higher and more self-evident principles as it does. That is, of course, the opposite of what you claimed in the thread you created here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?247781-Which-has-more-legal-and-moral-authority

Now I can explain exactly what happened. You live in Madison, a very leftist city, and you got tired of being thought of as unfashionable and neanderthal in your views on this by all the media around you and by those you associate with. It's clear in hindsight that you were not comfortable with the pure Ron Paul pro-property-rights (anti-Civil-Rights-Act) position even way back then in 2010. That's why you made the thread, to try to justify yourself to yourself, when really yourself was sitting on your shoulder telling you "But Rolf, being against the Civil Rights Act is not an acceptable position! That's not allowed in polite company." And eventually, two years later, you were able to come up with a ridiculous and convoluted rationale allowing you, in your own mind, to support anti-private-property laws and still be a consistent, logical, pro-liberty guy.

Believe me, though: your twisted solution is delusional.

In any case, allow me to:

derive the principle of habeas corpus from first principles.

Not only can I derive it from first principles, I can derive them from your first principles! Are you ready? Are you psyched? Think I can do it?

1) James Madison was the ultimate defender of liberty, and greatest human being to ever live, other than Galileo and everything he said and did was correct. This is axiom numero uno in your system of political thought, unchallengeable and immutable.
2) James Madison supported the right of habeas corpus.
3) The right of habeas corpus is correct.

Q.E.D., Rolf baby.

 

[tremendoustie]

OK, so you are saying people do not have the right to trial by jury. Now I know were we stand.

Way to demagogue the issue instead of listening to and addressing what I actually said.

Constitutionally, the government is required to grant trial by jury. These are their rules, and they would be violating their oath, were they to refuse such a trial.

From a first principles perspective, however, the requirement is that justice be done. If a society has an effective system of justice which does not employ trial by jury (e.g. gandhi's idea of swaraj), under which a person is convicted and fairly held accountable for a crime they are indeed guilty of, they are not a victim of injustice. If, however, a person is convicted by a jury of a crime they have not committed, or a non-crime, they are a victim of injustice.

Trial by jury is an invention intended to reduce the chances of doing injustice. The lack thereof does not necessarily imply injustice, nor does its presence necessarily imply justice.

This is a completely reasonable perspective, and in fact one that would be difficult to rationally oppose.

 

[SeekingFreedom]

I hate how Mainstream or liberals bring up the Civil Rights Act as sacrosanct legislation. As a minority, I would be totally for the repeal of Civil Rights Act. If restaurants or businesses want to only serve whites, let them. I don't want to use my hard-earned money in these types of establishments. I strongly doubt my Caucasian friends would want to support these places either. There is racism still in this country (and all over the world), but we got this PC racism where people are openly non-racist, but secretly racist which I feel is even more egregious. It enables institutional racism because everything becomes more hush-hush (less transparent) and doesn't let these issues be seriously addressed.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I hate how Mainstream or liberals bring up the Civil Rights Act as sacrosanct legislation. As a minority, I would be totally for the repeal of Civil Rights Act. If restaurants or businesses want to only serve whites, let them. I don't want to use my hard-earned money in these types of establishments. I strongly doubt my Caucasian friends would want to support these places either. There is racism still in this country (and all over the world), but we got this PC racism where people are openly non-racist, but secretly racist which I feel is even more egregious. It enables institutional racism because everything becomes more hush-hush (less transparent) and doesn't let these issues be seriously addressed.

Exactamundo. Let freedom work it out. It is not as if we are all secretly racist just itching for the govt to let down its guard for a second so we can go on a spree of wanton racism. No more than we would all rush out to get messed up on heroin if it were legal, as Ron Paul wisely and humorously and courageously explained in that South Carolina debate that now seems so long ago.