People can choose whatever courts they want, they can choose new courts in the future, they can even get one court to punish another court! You’re not describing a system of “courts” in any common sense of the word. That’s why I was confused. Your idea of a libertarian justice system, if you’re trying to connect that with the religious courts example, cannot work. If I can pay one court to declare another court invalid and punish them, obviously your system devolves to anarchy and chaos.

Maybe I shouldn’t have used the unique examples initially, actually sooner or later these questions come in in such a discussion(like how would your Libertarian courts handle the case of Abortion), but it seems I should have explained regular cases first.
Any criminal or civil case is basically a case of conflict between two parties, a rape case is between victim and rapist, a murder case is between a murderer and murder victim’s estate. So in case of conflict, we both have to settle down on a common third party arbitration. If we both agree on the same third party arbitration, things are good, we will sign a binding agreement and the decision given by it will be binding. If we don’t agree on a common third party arbitration(or if its just one sided accusation), you will go to yours(Court A) for a decision, and either the other party must go to a court(court B) of its own choice, or be ready to accept the decision of court A.

Now if both the courts, A and B give the same decision, the conflict is solved. If not then the courts A and B are said to be in a conflict, so now THEY will go to a common third party arbitration(chances are they might already be having a pre-determined court for themselves), if not then the court A and B are said to be in conflict just like you and me. This process cannot arbitrarily go on forever because there are huge costs involved with seeking any justice.

The invalidation claim I was talking about was only for court system which disagree with each other on a huge basis. For example, nobody can really stop the Catholics from seeking a Catholic court system, its a free society after all, the issue is how much power does the Catholic court has on people who do not wanna come under catholic court system. I was trying to explain you that.
This concept is already pre-existing in real world in Somalia, with Islamic Courts union, they gave justice based on Shariat, although initially they were quite widely accepted, and they basically ruled Somalia’s huge part(not rule as in Obama kind of rule, but the simple fact that if they gave a justice, it was enforced all over the land by Islamic Courts Union), but later because of Ethopian military’s operations they don’t exist that widely anymore.
Without constant military invasions by Ethopia and UN/US Somalis would have got eventually fed up with the Islamic courts system and would have opted for more Libertarian judgments.

Yes, but what if I’m also poor? What lawyer will do the pro-bono work and then get nothing? Umm… nobody. So the poor who have nothing to lose will go unpunished because nobody will have anything to gain.

You being rich or poor does not matter in a justice system, if you damaged someone for say $1 million then you must pay that money back irrespective of your economic status. Since justice is based on restitution more than punishment, even a rape case would be more about restitution(financial compensation) than punishment.

Now how will a poor man pay a million dollars from his pocket? The answer lies in private prison system(well if courts are private how come prisons aren’t, lol).

In the private prison system the intention is not a punishment, rather how does a prison try to use the culprit to create restitution for the victim.
So if you are a poor watchmaker who raped a girl and now has to pay $5 million dollars then you will be employed to work by a prison in a confined territory(depending upon your crime it could be confined or not), you could be living exactly like how you live right now, but the only difference would be a majority percentage of your salary would go towards the restitution fund.

A Prison would be successful or unsuccessful on how well they take care of their prisoner vs how profitable they are.
Take for example if you chose to go to a 5-star prison, you would be wasting most of your salary on your benefits, so it will take longer for you to come out with the restitution money, on the other hand living in a shabby room will help you save more money, thereby will make you come out of prison faster.
Anyways restitution is not the ultimate decision by everyone, it could happen that the rape victim wants punishment, so the individual will be punished in proportion to his crime. A slap for a slap, an eye for an eye, a rape for a rape. You could rape the person yourself, or you could hire someone to rape him for you. Two slaps for one slap would be an act of initiation of aggression. Then this person is entitled to slap you back.

Or you could simply want him to be sent to a prison for x amount of years(proportional the crime done, decided by free market courts).

That means for slapping someone, you could go to jail for few hours, or be made to pay $250 restitution, or be slapped by the other person or someone hired by the other person.
For a bit more detailed discussion, you can read two short essays written by Robert Murphy ‘Chaos Theory’: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf Its only 60 pages, so not going to take much time.

Why not read this again? http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/the-impasse-of-democracy-voting-is-not-a-solution-it-is-a-killer.html

I properly explained that Right of free speech free expression or any other right is totally dependent on RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

You can use your right to free speech on your blog.

Here, i am allowing you to speak on my freee-will it is mutual agreement.

That is why I am saying, read before commenting. Read each and every article I mentioned, and then you may get some point to disagree with.

Or you can read this

If you want to express freely, you need your own property premises to express, if you are a nudist and you wish to dance nude, you may do it in your home, or in a membership club which allows you to enjoy and express yourself freely at a certain charge. If you wish to roam naked freely on street, it certainly is not possible as street is not your property.

http://www.reasonforliberty.com/philosophy/republic-india-struggling-against-slavery.html

But here, when we are talking (we three, I have allowed you to talk, to express yourself, at my property, as if it is a cocktail party and i have invited you at my house. its mutual beneficial agreement, a proper way of free society.

As for example, in a feud, someone kills a person, he accepts his crime, but the family of victim want to forgive him, they do not want him to be hanged, then there is a way.
if they want the culprit to get capital punishment, no restitution can save him.

Similarly, be the girl is poor or rich, if she want the rapist to be punished severely (as per law) no money can save him.

Yet, if for some reason girl just do not want him to punish, he may get freedom without any restitution too, if girl decides they may marry too, if girl decides, she may get restitution too.

Lawyer s secondary, first is the victim and accused.

About pro-bono thing, when there will be private security nets, the private security nets will provide the lawyers by themselves.

And just like the private ISP providers, the charges of security nets will be as low as possible because of competitive market.

Justice will be reachable for the poorest of the community at proper charges.

and anyways, nothing is free in any sort of world.

Good Lord. Obviously first amendments rights don’t apply to this blog. If you look at the context, it’s clear that I was talking about a more general definition of personal liberty than the narrow scope of the US Constitution. Don’t insult my intelligence.

You’re right, I guess I didn’t understand. Reading your new examples, I understand but find your idea meaningless. People can choose whatever courts they want, they can choose new courts in the future, they can even get one court to punish another court! You’re not describing a system of “courts” in any common sense of the word. That’s why I was confused.

Your idea of a libertarian justice system, if you’re trying to connect that with the religious courts example, cannot work. If I can pay one court to declare another court invalid and punish them, obviously your system devolves to anarchy and chaos.

If you’re not trying to connect them, it still fails because not all criminals are wealthy. For instance:

“If you raped a poor girl who has no money, any ambulance chasing lawyer would be willing to fight for her case pro-bono if her claim is substantial, and rip you off of Millions of dollars as restitution(and a heavy fee for himself).”

Yes, but what if I’m also poor? What lawyer will do the pro-bono work and then get nothing? Umm… nobody. So the poor who have nothing to lose will go unpunished because nobody will have anything to gain.

I mean… are you really arguing that justice can work as a private enterprise? Five seconds of thought will tell you that it can’t provide true justice if it operates with profit motives!

In this group I have given up my right to free speech.

I disagree with you and Gargi on this one. You don’t HAVE a right to free speech on my blog. Free speech isn’t a positive right that every individual must be given that, the right to free speech is just a negative right, preventing govt from making any laws against it.

Your “First Amendment rights” are only applicable on your own property, anybody else’s property who gave you consent to put your speech on his property, and govt properties(public properties).

IF if you wanna write something on your own blog, and someone prevents you(provided its not a blogspot blog and google is preventing you coz its google’s property) , then its a violation of your private property rights, if govt stops you from doing so then its a violation of your first amendment rights.
If you are given a consent by a newspaper on writing on his newspaper and govt or third party stops you, then its a violation of newspaper writer’s property right.

This definition of free speech, that my speech is also applicable on your butt, is what leftist hippy students talk about when they are kicked out of a private meeting.

So by not having your speech, or prevention, modification or deletion of your comments on this blog is not a violation of any of your rights, coz they don’t exist on this blog, in fact forcing me to put your content on my site would be a violation of my property rights.

The same thing works in larger groups. I have given up the liberty to go to a crowded theater and make a false alarm that there is a fire. In exchange for that, I gain the freedom to go to a crowded theater and not have OTHER people make false alarms.

Again dangerously not true.

You don’t even have the right to say your own name against the wishes of a theater owner, leave alone screaming fire. The Supreme Court’s definition of the “exception” of first amendment is dangerously wrong.

When you scream Fire in a crowded theater, you violate the property rights of the theater owner by creating a disturbance there. No you don’t give up any Liberties coz you don’t have any positive rights on his property, whatever rights you get are the rights HE GIVES YOU.

If he forces you to wear a man’s dress(coz you are a man) on his property, or else he threatens to kick you out then he is not violating your “right to be dressed as a fairy and demanding attention”, nor when you wear man’s clothes you are giving up your “right to be dressed as a fairy and demanding attention”.

The only rights you have on his property is what you own of your own, for example if he steals your money in his theater, that’s your property, so its a theft, if he steals your baby, your wife, yourself, your clothes, your car and basically anything he allowed you to bring to his property, then its all theft.

In this group I have given up my right to free speech.

Right, and that is your voluntary choice. You are not coerced for it. you can surely deny conversing with us, that is your individual freedom have not been breached. it is an agreeable condition, it is my property and i am letting you use it, its my free-will.

The same thing works in larger groups.

Yes the same thing should work on Large group,
it should work like this http://www.reasonforliberty.com/philosophy/liberty-tolerance-freedom-of-expression-and-political-correctness.html

but it doesn’t as for example, compulsive taxation, it is compulsory, it is wastage, it is exploitation.
There are many other examples, as for the case you are a christian, there’s a group cult holy grail http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/human-sacrifice.html
It becomes coercive and extreme.
There’s a billion examples, yet better you read what is provided first before commenting again, it will help you understand that I am not talking of anti-community i am surely talking of Pro-community, but good of community is only when Individual Freedom is preserved. Otherwise it becomes tyranny/.

So, please do not try to preach alone, rather try to understand other’s point of view too.

What happens to people who change religions? What happens to children who join a church because their parents tell them to?

That sounds like you didn’t understand my point at all.

I just gave an example that if Christian courts get enough market then they will be famous giving decisions to binding Christians. In the sense that if two Christians wanna go to their Pastor for a dispute resolution they are free to do so, but then asking “what if one of the person changes his religion?”, well I think the stupidity of the question is obvious.

Although if you mean to say what if a teenage girl who went ahead and had an Abortion is punished by the Christian court for taking a life, but the Libertarian courts do not acknowledge it as a crime(I am not taking a stance on Abortion here, but lets say if that happened), well its a simple thing, if this girl went to Libertarian courts in future and claimed an act of aggression against the Christian courts then the christian court must be punished.

The point is, that nothing is involuntary here, in this case the teenage girl’s consent wasn’t involved so the Christian court had no recourse, although if the Christian court simply shows papers of parents signing a document “accepting the Christian courts” as a binding authority on this case then the liability is with parents.

The main problem I see is that it becomes easy to take advantage of the desperate, the uneducated, or the plain naive, because you can get them to agree to any arbitrary set of laws that you want… That protection seems to be missing from the system you propose since the contract effectively becomes the new law.

I don’t know why you think that politicians who seek votes from people somehow have these supernatural powers and this extraordinary thinking which profit-seeking private individuals just do not have as the laws of nature dictate. A poor guy needs food really really desperately, can you charge him a Million dollars for that food? Which current law protects a really really poor guy from being ripped off of his million dollars for a plate of food? The answer is NONE!(Price gauging is only applicable in natural disasters).

So does that mean either people in America are constantly ripping off poor people of their millions of dollars for a plate of food, or people in America are real nice people and they don’t do these evil things out of sheer generosity.
Is my point clear here? Its in comic language, but I evolved it to answer some totally irrelevant questions people ask about a society of pure Liberty. There is no law against asking poor and desperate people to do things for you(excluding slavery), but then what is it you really want them to do without giving them bodily harms?

If you raped a poor girl who has no money, any ambulance chasing lawyer would be willing to fight for her case pro-bono if her claim is substantial, and rip you off of Millions of dollars as restitution(and a heavy fee for himself).

Just an additional point the libertarian judicial system will stress on restitution as much as punishment, currently in our justice system punishment is much more important than restitution, if a girl is raped, and is offered 5 million dollars and she will keep her mouth shut, its not acceptable in Legal system of America, its definitely not acceptable if its a murder and the family decides to move on by taking money(restitution).

I find it hard to believe that you truly believe what you’re saying about groups. Look, we here are a group right now. You me and renegade_division. I do not have moderator status on this blog, though. When I make a comment, I must wait for it to be approved by someone else. In this group I have given up my right to free speech.

However, what do I gain from this? I gain protection from others who would abuse their right to speech. Your blog does not have hundreds of spam posts on each article, which would make the comment section worthless. So I give up my liberty voluntarily to the group (even more dangerously, to the single leader of the group) so that I can enjoy a good blog with good comments and no spam.

The same thing works in larger groups. I have given up the liberty to go to a crowded theater and make a false alarm that there is a fire. In exchange for that, I gain the freedom to go to a crowded theater and not have OTHER people make false alarms.

Groups become dangerous not when individual liberties are limited by the group, but when disparities in individual liberties are allowed. If a subgroup within the group has more rights than others, you have a problem.

That is what happened with the Soviet Union. The top members of the communist party were above the law and could dictate others’ rights at will. It wasn’t the group that made it bad but the disparity.

No, I thought you were referring to jury trials still. Even if there’s a 99.9% chance that Osama is hiding in a village full of children, obviously you would not bomb it. Be realistic!

“There are many punishments for future crimes, conspiracy to commit a murder is one of them. Solicitation is another, pretty much everything which is a crime, planning to commit that crime is punishable.”

Yes, those are crimes in and of themselves written into law. Note that the act of planning to commit murder is distinct from the act of murder itself.

“If tomorrow a Catholic Court system develops, and a Christian woman agrees to go to the court, and the court holds her guilty for abortion and punishes her, the judgment would be binding to her(coz she agreed to go there at the first place), on the other hand, if an atheist woman goes for abortion, and a Christian husband wants to drag her a Christian court, and she does not agree to it, then this catholic court can never force their judgment on her unless most of the courts she can possibly go to agree with the Catholic court.”

What happens to people who change religions? What happens to children who join a church because their parents tell them to?

It’s an interesting idea but there are a lot of details to work out. The main problem I see is that it becomes easy to take advantage of the desperate, the uneducated, or the plain naive, because you can get them to agree to any arbitrary set of laws that you want. In reality, contracts are subordinate to the law of the land and to personal rights. If you willingly and knowingly sign a contract that says you must be lashed 50 times if you get an abortion, because you’re young and in love and you don’t think you’ll ever need or want an abortion… that’s an illegal contract. It cannot be enforced in court. That protection seems to be missing from the system you propose since the contract effectively becomes the new law.

“Well what if the President of Mexico thinks that Minuteman Project is a rogue American group which is harming their citizens who are crossing the borders, and he must make a missile strike on the house of Chris Simcox to eliminate the rogue elements.”

What is the truth? The way you have phrased it is very ambiguous — maybe Mexico is crazy, maybe they’re right, who knows. I have to know the truth before I can judge the situation.

Secondly, if the group becomes legitimately more important than the Individual existence, it doesn’t remain group of free individuals, it becomes a slavery with a tyranical ruling bench. That is not healthy history is evident of that, you may try to grope in marx, stalin or lenin case.
Thirdly, if a group starts enforcing the majority rule over minority, it becomes exploitative demanding sacrifice by the individual get a read here http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/the-impasse-of-democracy-voting-is-not-a-solution-it-is-a-killer.html
The holocaust was a consequence of group mentality, and so was all racism and related crimes.

There should always remain an equilibrium between grouping right and Individual right and the proper limit of that equilibrium is the freedom of individual to engage in mutually beneficial relations voluntarily by choice, with an option to not to choose to be a part.
Just because taliban is a gorup, if you start killing children and kids of talibanis, it makes no sense.

Now about Pakistan.
I never said Pakistan is taliban, yet you and may be Obama thinks that pakistan is rouge state, if there are some talibanis in Pakistan, then Pakistan government/army is either supporting them or not taking any action against them, that is why Obama ordered air strike.
So, if he is so sure that pakistan army is doing nothing, why cannot he attack Pakistan?
He can do so he is mad, when he can order bombing civilian villages of pakistan, then why cannot he attack islamabad lahor or karachi too? Even Hitler was mad.
And Hitler was also chosen democratically by germans, USA chose Obama.
About my rational thinking, For me, the notion of nation matters nothing, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran USA, all are one in same for me One world, what is important is Individual and Individual right, his right to own his life, that is his right to act for his living.
Obama is destroying Innocent life, he is criminal. There are no two way talks about it.

By the way, why did you avoid answering Renegade_division?

Thank you for answering. I respect your opinion but I think you’re asking for something unreasonable. You are essentially saying that action is only justified when the chance for civilian casualties is 0%. That is simply impossible.

“Curse of collectivism is, it denounces the right of individual freedom.”

People are safer in groups than alone so collectivism actually supports the right of individual freedom. In exchange for that safety you voluntarily give up rights that hurt others. For instance, you have no right to kill your neighbor — but in return, he has no right to kill you. The state protects you from each other. Giving up certain rights allows other rights to be experienced more fully — things like the right to privacy, the right to free speech, and so on. These are rights that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce without some degree of collectivism.

“And if Obama had to attack on Pakistan, declare the war. When USA can provide those billions of dollar every now and then for pakistan, why it cannot force pakistan to act on the site? And if it cannot force, than declare war, or forget Osama.”

This is a huge issue in itself. I don’t know the answer. Actually I agree with you on this point and I think the USA should do more to ensure that any funds given to Pakistan go directly to the civilian government for it to disburse rather than directly to the Pakistan Army where there is no accountability. That would probably help the situation.

“What sort of talks Obama had with pakistani diplomats and millitary personals before attacking on Pakistan? Which third party arbitrator approved USA’s action to attack another nation? It makes no sense to support obama for any hypothetical cause.”

Obama did in fact have talks with Pakistani officials. He told them he would continue the policy of using missile strikes when provided with good information on targets. Pakistan has the right to refuse that request by declaring war on the US. Since they aren’t doing that, what conclusion do you draw?

I think there’s an important distinction between attacking Pakistan and attacking the Taliban within Pakistan. Are you saying that the Taliban is *part* of Pakistan? That doesn’t make sense since the Taliban is openly fighting the legitimate government of Pakistan. Why should the Pakistan government defend the Taliban, rationally speaking?

Everybody decides from themselves. There is no fixed percentage.

That’s not really an answer to my question, what if George W Bush’s percentage for a reasonable doubt of Osama hiding in a children’s village is 2%? Are you saying everything is acceptable?
In the movie Eagle Eye, the huge machine does a revolt against the President because he orders a bombing on a funeral in Afghanistan when there was only 51% confirmation of the terrorists being identified by the system. Because of this the machine which was coded to follow the Constitution to the letter construes the Executive Branch as a threat to the nation(because an attack like that would increase the hatred in the world for America, thus provoking more attacks on American soil), so it decides to eliminate the executive branch altogether and install the Secretary of Defense(who agreed with the Machine to abort the mission).
Its a classic hollywood example for our discussion, according to machine 51% wasn’t good enough to order the strikes, but according to the President it was good enough. Now the acceptable percentage isn’t written in Constitution, in fact according to the constitution, attacks on foreign soil aren’t even allowed.(Look at the record of Ron Paul for a completely word-to-word following of Constitution).

Also, people are put on trial for crimes that have already happened, not the likelihood of future crimes.

There are many punishments for future crimes, conspiracy to commit a murder is one of them. Solicitation is another, pretty much everything which is a crime, planning to commit that crime is punishable.

That’s a very interesting idea, I haven’t heard of it before. The thing is, if you’re taking a capitalistic view of the judicial system, how do you provide a market for it? What is the market?

I am glad you liked the idea.
There are currently 250,000 members of American Arbitrators Association and the number is increasing every year. These arbitrators provide you mediation for civil law suits, they can also do so for criminal law suits, like it used to happen in England around 15th century. These private courts were quite efficient in providing justice, in fact the whole common law system on which most of our statutory law system is based wasn’t developed overnight by a committee of legislatures, in fact it was developed over case by case basis in the private courts.
This is exactly how Somalia’s Islamic Court System developed, the only problem is that they were having Shariat in mind, so they weren’t really Libertarian as Americans would want it, though the ICU(Islamic Court Union) was pretty acceptable for mots of the Somalis who are Muslims.
If tomorrow a Catholic Court system develops, and a Christian woman agrees to go to the court, and the court holds her guilty for abortion and punishes her, the judgment would be binding to her(coz she agreed to go there at the first place), on the other hand, if an atheist woman goes for abortion, and a Christian husband wants to drag her a Christian court, and she does not agree to it, then this catholic court can never force their judgment on her unless most of the courts she can possibly go to agree with the Catholic court.
Though it may sound like a big problem, but it is not, the Catholic specific courts can only enforce a biblical decision on an individual as long as the individual agreed upon the court, although the individual can go to an appeals court, and if this court turns out to be a non-catholic court, then the people will have to agree upon the more Libertarian solution.
If a Catholic guy marries 2 woman at the same time, without letting them know about each other, and when these women want to drag him to a catholic court, but the Man goes to a Mormon court(who do not consider polygamy as a crime), then the more Libertarian solution will be binding, (the Mormon solution as long as there was no fraud involved in the marital contracts).
Though there will not be any marriage laws, so every marriage must involve a pre-nuptial agreement, describing in full what the divorce settlement, and other things would be. So the polygamy clause will be included in it(That is the individual must not be in a marital contract with anybody else during the duration of the marriage), that means for most of the people the marriages will be exclusive, except for those who want a multiple partners marriage.

I feel like her judgment of Obama is grounded in an emotional reaction without any underlying philosophy or theory that would let her make a decision in real life.

She is Indian, if anything emotional then she should be happy for such an attack. But she is not, and that shows she is thinking rationally.
Although the big point what we were trying to show here was that whether its Obama or Bush, nothing ever changes. The fault lies in the position(Presidency) rather than the individual.

To me it’s clear that if a country has rogue elements operating within its borders, and cannot or will not do anything about them, then their case of sovereignty is weakened. What do you think?

Well what if the President of Mexico thinks that Minuteman Project is a rogue American group which is harming their citizens who are crossing the borders, and he must make a missile strike on the house of Chris Simcox to eliminate the rogue elements. And in this attack he makes a missile strike on the house of say Michael Moore, and nobody in Mexico even questions whether he attacked the right house or not. For them all Gringos are the same, if President came and said, “We took down the house of a suspected Minuteman Group member and 4 people were killed in this operation”.
Well people in Mexico don’t care whether Bill O’Reilly is dead or Lou Dobbs, as long as the President can link them to Minuteman Project.
Well what do you say about that?

I was asking Unpretentious Diva what her response would be to that hypothetical situation. I feel like her judgment of Obama is grounded in an emotional reaction without any underlying philosophy or theory that would let her make a decision in real life. It’s very easy to feel sad about something and say “This should not have happened!”

I am not at all emotional about it.
Obama was emotional and fool and he did the crime.
Why should I order to bomb a place where many more people are certainly living since ages even if I get an information that Osama is out there?

How and why should I judge the lives of those innocents any less than my or any other American’s life?

So one thing is clear that I won’t do what Obama did, and it is not emotional, it is reasonable. Reason is Political Equality of every citizen around the globe, and the right to life. If I breach it by coercion, I am criminal no less than Osama.

Curse of collectivism is, it denounces the right of individual freedom.
And if Obama had to attack on Pakistan, declare the war. When USA can provide those billions of dollar every now and then for pakistan, why it cannot force pakistan to act on the site? And if it cannot force, than declare war, or forget Osama.

What sort of talks Obama had with pakistani diplomats and millitary personals before attacking on Pakistan? Which third party arbitrator approved USA’s action to attack another nation? It makes no sense to support obama for any hypothetical cause.

About collectivism, to gather voluntarily is an Individual right, to not to let that group exploit your individual freedom is also an Individual right.

Everybody decides from themselves. There is no fixed percentage.

“Secondly, if statistics say that an african-american male who has been convicted of a crime once, has an 80% chance of committing that crime again, does that mean we should throw an african-american male who commits one crime into jail forever?? Is 80% good enough? How about if statistics show 90% probability? How about 99.99% probability that an individual will commit a crime again?”

Again, no fixed percentages, which are impossible to calculate anyway. Also, people are put on trial for crimes that have already happened, not the likelihood of future crimes.

“The private competing judicial systems only ensure that whatever probability is possible is the best possible for that situation. It can’t be 100% or 0%, but a jury/judge based monopolistic judiciary system can never ensure maximum efficiency, just like a competing private entities always provides you cheapest possible rate for any service/commodity in comparison to a monopolistic govt entity.”

That’s a very interesting idea, I haven’t heard of it before. The thing is, if you’re taking a capitalistic view of the judicial system, how do you provide a market for it? What is the market?

“The truth is, America invaded Iraq because American govt(Republicans and Democrats) found an opportunity and public opinion to settle down this Iraq oil issue once and for all. Its just that when the War became too costly, everybody ran back and claimed “Bush” waged war for “oil companies”.”

I agree that blaming everything on Bush as if he’s a dictator is illogical. Everything was approved by Congress and initially had widespread support. To be honest, I don’t think anybody will know the truth for at least 50 years. It takes a while for history to be settled.

“This is really stupid to think that Obama got intelligence that Osama is hiding at that location, whenever that happened in Bush administration, they declared it, “Military made a strike to where they suspected Osama might be hiding”.”

Sorry, you misunderstood. I wasn’t saying that is what happened. I was asking Unpretentious Diva what her response would be to that hypothetical situation. I feel like her judgment of Obama is grounded in an emotional reaction without any underlying philosophy or theory that would let her make a decision in real life. It’s very easy to feel sad about something and say “This should not have happened!” It’s much harder to put forth what should have happened instead and show why your reaction is better. Unfortunately, she continues to ignore my question on the matter so I’m giving up on understanding her theory more.

“This imaginary scenario is just a lame defense of Obama’s actions, which I fail to understand why considering you run a Pakistani website.”

I help run the Grand Trunk Road blog in a limited fashion, if that’s what you are talking about, but I am American and have an American perspective. I clearly have very different ideas than you about the responsibilities of a government to its own people as well as to other governments. I’m always interested in talking to people about that, but I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt and not assume I’m lame or stupid. To me it’s clear that if a country has rogue elements operating within its borders, and cannot or will not do anything about them, then their case of sovereignty is weakened. What do you think?

I don’t think you’re familiar with the US jury system; forgive me if I’m wrong. If the jury makes an incorrect verdict, it is not a crime. The judge is not put on trial. The jury members are not put on trial. It’s simply a mistake. Mistakes are always treated differently than intentional harm and in many cases it’s not a crime.

“Thus obviously, when you talk of Nation, army or any collectivist statist authority, it certainly is deemed to be creating trouble, coercion harassment and crime at some level or other. This is curse of collectivism which we all suffering from both sides, be it USA army, or Talibanis.”

I don’t know what you mean about collectivism being a curse. Surely it’s human nature for people to form groups? Civilization certainly wasn’t forced on us by anyone. To me, Rousseau’s Social Contract spells out one of the most moral and natural forms of governance. Are you talking about some other type of collectivism?

“Wow!, on 20th january he was sworn in, and within 6 days he ordered two strikes on Pakistan, and you say he had no other way?”

Hmm. Again you completely ignored my question and did not give an answer. I guess you do not have an answer or are afraid to give it.

“Gaza came in between because Israel is and was always in between these tussles of Iraq, Iran Afghanistan and now Pakistan.”

Care to explain? I do not see what Israel has to do with the missile strikes we were talking about. Surely you don’t follow some crazy conspiracy theory that Israel is secretly bombing Pakistan or something?

“How it can be subjective? If a government officer is entering your house forcibly, even than it is not action of peace or liberty, while what Obama is ordering for is to bombard other nation’s border. I understand that even in America property rights holds very less sense these days under the socialist streams going on since long, yet if someone is clearly breaching property rights, how can you even suggest that it is a process of peace? it is a process of governmental tyranny and nothing else.”

This is getting ridiculous. You don’t have property rights if you allow these actions to go on. In America, Pakistan, or any country in the world, if you are using your private property to build up a resistance army to overthrow the government, you will be arrested and will lose your property. In America and countries where drugs are illegal, if you are growing drugs in your garden your house will be taken away from you. Property rights do not protect you from legal consequences. Property rights are actually the right to control private access to your land, as well as derive a profit from your land. That’s it. You’re not allowed to keep out the police, the army, the IRS, or any other public officer. Property rights do not override the law. That should be obvious!

As for “spreading peace” being subjective, I think that’s quite clear. For instance, Hamas’s idea of peace is that Israel withdraws from the occupied lands and lets Palestine rebuild as a true modern nation. Israel’s idea of peace is for Hamas to give up that idea and stop launching rockets at Israel. Hence peace is subjective, not objective.

“You are simply trying to save a wrong, trying to suggest that Obama is not a killer, but objectively, he is.”

Objectively, he is partially responsible for some deaths but he is not a murderer or killer, nor does he have a “killing instinct”, nor is he “anti-humanity”. Hopefully you see the difference. Similarly, you and I are responsible for some deaths as well. Think about it. If you have money for an internet connection and computer, there are people you could have saved from starvation or worse using the money you spent on the computer. So you are partially responsible for their deaths through your inaction.

On larger scales where you’re talking not about an individual crime but an army or a state, the standard has to be much more lenient. It’s simply impossible to make a national decision beyond a reasonable doubt that no harm will be done. Impossible. The balance that the military finds is that they do not target civilians purposely or for no reason, but at the same time they do not avoid conflict where civilians may be harmed.

I have a few questions for you. First of all who decides what percentage of doubt is good enough? Sure there is a Jury trial system, but Juries are not professionals, they are shown DNA evidence, AND they are told that DNA is 90% accurate, they are shown circumstantial evidence and now they are left to decide it with no guidance, there is an evidence but it cannot be used because its extracted from a violation of accused’s 4th Amendment rights, but if Jury hears about it they get biased towards the results.
And after all these things we leave it at “beyond reasonable doubt” to the jury. People do learn to play with the juries, a woman who cries in front of jury and is accused of killing her husband has a major chances of walking free, compared to a woman who does not cry in front of jury. That does not really sound like beyond reasonable doubt to me.

Secondly, if statistics say that an african-american male who has been convicted of a crime once, has an 80% chance of committing that crime again, does that mean we should throw an african-american male who commits one crime into jail forever?? Is 80% good enough? How about if statistics show 90% probability? How about 99.99% probability that an individual will commit a crime again?

You are right that there is no 100% probability or 0% probability ever and I disagree with Unpretentious here when she says that it will be a zero percent probability among competing judicial systems. The private competing judicial systems only ensure that whatever probability is possible is the best possible for that situation. It can’t be 100% or 0%, but a jury/judge based monopolistic judiciary system can never ensure maximum efficiency, just like a competing private entities always provides you cheapest possible rate for any service/commodity in comparison to a monopolistic govt entity.

Take an example of Somalian telecom industry, no govts there, only private cut throat competition, and local calls are UNLIMITED FREE on cell phones for only $10 per month(a comparable US plan would be $170 per month). You can launch your own cell phone company within hours in Somalia(no I am not talking about getting a phone line, but setting up a phone company), and a landline phone company within days.

A $10 per month plan demonstrates the minimum possible cost for a phone connection at present times. It can be only done by a free market.

Pretend you are Obama. You get a call from the CIA saying the house at these gps coordinates has Osama bin Laden in it!

Pretend you are GWB, you get a call from CIA saying that Saddam Hussein might be building weapons of mass destructions….you know where I am going with it, right? NO I am not saying that there is a justification of Iraq invasion, all I am saying is GWB wasn’t a military dictator, with his pet project of invading Iraq. GWB was a democratically elected President too using the same information from its intelligence agencies.

Americans love to tie Bush with “personal profits” from Iraq invasion. But could it be possible that he did it because of America? Americans say GWB invaded Iraq for Oil(instead of America invaded Iraq for oil), but then the question comes in, well what did he wanted to do with the Oil, did he want to drink it? Well to answer that question a theory of tying personal profit of Bush with the war in Iraq.

The truth is, America invaded Iraq because American govt(Republicans and Democrats) found an opportunity and public opinion to settle down this Iraq oil issue once and for all. Its just that when the War became too costly, everybody ran back and claimed “Bush” waged war for “oil companies”.

This is really stupid to think that Obama got intelligence that Osama is hiding at that location, whenever that happened in Bush administration, they declared it, “Military made a strike to where they suspected Osama might be hiding”. This imaginary scenario is just a lame defense of Obama’s actions, which I fail to understand why considering you run a Pakistani website.