Tag: law

The Concept of Justice in an Unjust World

Roger Mitchell7 Comments

I subscribe to Doug Casey’s communique and regularly receive articles which I always read intently, sometimes more than once, and from which I usually learn something, even if nothing more than to buttress and bolster my own viewpoint. The most recent one did just that, commenting on the system in American society which we call “justice”, and proposing a logical, well-reasoned solution to the problem. I have reprinted it here in verbatim and added nothing. If you want to see the original, click on the link below. For the record, I am in complete agreement with Casey’s argument.

Doug Casey on the Failures of the Justice System and a Viable Solution

justic1e.jpg

International Man: What is the role of a justice system in a society, and what should the State have to do with it?

Doug Casey: In my view, what really holds a society together isn’t the laws enacted by legislatures or dictators, but peer pressure, social opprobrium, and moral approbation. In general, society is pretty self-regulating. It’s why people pay their bills at restaurants even though there’s not a cop at the door. Criminals are the exception, not the rule—although, it must be said, they naturally gravitate towards the government.

When somebody commits a crime, there’s a trial to determine what harm has been done, who should be compensated, and so forth. Courts determine these things. But I would argue that the state is not a necessary part of any of this. Society, like markets, tends to be self-ordering.

With a minimal “night watchman” sort of state like that described by Ayn Rand, the proper role of government is simply to defend you from force and fraud. This implies an army to defend you from force external to your society, a police force to defend you from force within your society, and a court system to allow the adjudication of disputes without resorting to force.

I could live in a society like that—it would be a vast improvement over what we have now. A proper court system, with either arbitrators or judges and juries system, would be part of it. But I’d go on to argue that juries and courts should be privatized.

International Man: What would a privatized justice system look like? Would it have juries?

Doug Casey: There might be either arbitrators, or juries, or both. The jury should be composed of independent thinkers who aren’t easily swayed by rhetoric or pressured by groupthink. Today, however, they’re just random people who aren’t clever enough to avoid jury duty.

In theory, juries can counter the tremendous power of judges. Judges today are either elected or appointed. If elected, they have to campaign like any other politician and are subject to the same perverse incentives any other politician is. If they are appointed, it can be even worse. Appointees are often just collecting political favors. While they’re allegedly more independent, in many ways, they’re even less accountable.

In theory, a jury is a good counterbalance to the power of the judge. You need some way to weigh the facts and decide who’s in the right. But the way juries work in the US today is far from optimal. It used to be that a jury could easily overturn any law. The process was called jury nullification, and it was an effective way for the common people to keep legislators under control. Today, however, it’s really a dead letter.

Today’s juries amount to a form of involuntary servitude. You get your notice for jury duty, and you either have to serve, whether you want to or not or come up with excuses the state will deign to accept. Most productive people feel that they have more urgent priorities in their lives than helping decide court cases that can go on for months. So the type of people who end up serving on juries these days generally have nothing better to do or for whom the trivial fee they pay is good money. Hardly the kind of person who should decide weighty matters, perhaps even life and death.

In addition, many trials center on highly technical concepts, and forms of evidence, that people rounded up from the highways and byways are simply unqualified to interpret.

Worse, there’s the jury selection process called voir dire. The notion is to give the attorneys of both sides the opportunity to remove a few individuals from the jury who might be biased against their case, thus ensuring a more unbiased jury. But in practice, it’s an interrogation process by which lawyers try to ensure they get a jury that will believe whatever they tell them. This usually means that anyone exhibiting the least bit of independent thinking or is prone to value justice over law enforcement will get removed and never serve on a jury.

The result is that the quality of juries today is several standard deviations below what it should be. Any intelligent person has opinions, and in this day of the Internet, almost any person’s opinions are easy to find out. No matter which way your opinions line up, one side or the other isn’t going to like them in any case, so you won’t make it past voir dire. Both the prosecution and defense like to see malleable jurors with easily influenced minds. As a result, the typical juror has no opinions other than those on the weather, sports, and American Idol. People who think in concepts are weeded out as troublemakers.

This process makes a shambles of the concept of a “jury of your peers.”The type of people they rope into jury duty wouldn’t likely be the peers of anyone now reading this. If I were facing a trial, I’d much rather be tried by twelve people randomly selected out of a phone book than by the type of people who get selected for jury duty.

If we’re to have juries, they ought to be truly juries of our peers—people who can understand you and the facts pertaining to your case. But we’re far from an ideal system. It’s worse than arbitrary; given that most of those employed by the justice system work for the state, and that it’s the state vs. an individual in so many cases, there’s a huge inherent bias on top of the whole problem with today’s stacked juries.

International Man: What is an ideal justice system in your perspective?

Doug Casey: It would be a more equitable system if judges and jurors were professionals who had to compete with each other on the basis of their proven records of intelligence, fairness, speed, and low cost. The victim and the accused would mutually agree on the judge and jury or arbitrators.

Separating justice and state would help eliminate the state’s ability to prosecute phony, made-up crimes, especially crimes with no victims. There needs to be an actual victim to press charges if the state can’t be party to a case. That alone would eliminate the wasted resources and trashed lives resulting from the US’s various wars against victimless crimes. No one could be criminally prosecuted for having unorthodox sexual preferences, using unpopular drugs, drinking on Sunday, or smoking in a private establishment. Or for evading taxes. It might surprise Americans to know that tax evasion is a civil, not a criminal, matter in most countries.

Most legal actions focus on matters of tort and breach of contract. It’s important to keep the laws simple and few, so ignorance of the law is impossible. Ideally, just two great laws:

1. Do all that you say you’re going to do.

2. Don’t aggress against other people or their property.

The point is that justice has to do with righting actual wrongs that have been done to people, not enforcing laws and exacting arbitrary punishments. Today justice means enforcing the will of politicians and bureaucrats. A proper system of justice would focus on making the victim whole, not arbitrarily punishing the aggressor.

With privatized justice, someone would accuse another, both sides would choose an arbitrator (professional or otherwise), and those two arbitrators would agree on a third to make sure there were no tied votes. They would look at all the facts—not just the arbitrary subset of facts allowed by legal precedent and state machinations. That decision would not be about punishing anyone but about making the harmed party whole again.

The key concepts are justice and restitution, not punishment. Punishment, if you actually think about it, rarely serves any useful purpose; it just gives vent to base and reactive emotions. It may set a “good example” to deter future miscreants, but it definitely sets a bad example for society as a whole by institutionalizing and justifying cruelty.

International Man: Is there any hope for the current justice system?

Doug Casey: The whole system is highly politicized, which is only natural for something run by the state. Unfortunately, as the country increasingly looks to government as a solution—your only choice being to choose between so-called “right” and “left” politics. That’s going to make the current legal system even more dysfunctional in every way I can think of.

International Man: What are the implications of this for investors and businesses?

Doug Casey: I see people being convicted under ridiculous applications of the securities laws, tax laws, and more. The only area where things are becoming more rational and freer is the area of drug laws. It’s becoming clear to even the dimmest legislators and jurists that they’re as stupid and destructive as were those against alcohol during Prohibition.

In fact, almost all the administrative laws of the myriad of three- and four-letter agencies—ATF, FTC, EPA, SEC, FDA, etc., etc.—create bogus and even nonsensical “crimes.” Even if you aren’t convicted, if you’re targeted, it can cost you hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in legal fees, plus time, lost business, and damaged reputation. The system has become rapacious and Kafkaesque. And as the state grabs more and more power with each passing crisis, the risk of attention from state operatives increases, even for innocent and honest­ people. The trend is accelerating in a negative direction. If history is any guide, things will get worse until we reach a genuine crisis. That’s bad news for anyone with any wealth, especially if they have unpopular political views.

That has very serious implications. Not just for people in business and investors, but society itself. This is one reason I’m so bearish on the prospects of the current world order; not only are there decades-long distortions in the economy that have to be liquidated, but the whole legal system is rotten to the core. It needs to be scrapped—someone needs to push the reset button and restore justice as its guiding principle—and that, too, is a distortion that can’t be corrected easily or painlessly.

Unfortunately, it seems as if it’s the very worst people who have their fingers on “The Great Reset” button.

Can Moral Obligations be Mandated by Law?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

I’m going to give Donald Trump a little respite and breather in this post and address something more philosophical and germane to human nature.

I hardly ever watch Fox News and if by some chance I do, it is for never more than a moment or two before I quit, usually out of disgust by whatever clap the commentator is waxing eloquent about. Self-determined and proclaimed moralism is not just a religion of the Left, the so-called conservative Right is also shot through with it.

Nevertheless, a few days ago, I sat down with my wife and watched a segment of news, Laura Ingraham’s interview with Holly (last name unknown), as she was recovering from a severe beating she had endured at the hands of an out-of-control mob in Cincinnati, Ohio. The resultant bruises from the blows she had received were still quite visible, although it appeared that she was well on the road to physical healing.

Holly exuded an air of calmness and patience, and I did not notice any display of anger or rage on her part, which might have been justifiable considering everything she had been through. In fact, she openly expressed an interest, not in revenge and punishment, but reconciliation and understanding to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to another person. This is an admirable stance. I respect her for it and I said something to that effect to my wife when the segment was over.

“I like her. She is already famous and this will benefit her immensely. The black mob and the Cincinnati officials have not done themselves any good, but Holly will become an important, highly sought-after person, perhaps running for political office or accepting an offer to become a TV news personality of her own.”

Or something like that. As I said, it was a few days ago and my memory is not what it used to be.

There was, however, something that Holly said which I disagree with and it has to do with the moral responsibility of the onlookers, many of whom were actively taking videos, but did not call 911 or the legal authorities to intervene to bring the melee to an end. In essence, she said that this practice ought to be illegal and these people punished according to law. Philosophically, I think she is wrong and, on this, I am going to invoke Walter Block, he of “Defending the Undefendable” fame (infamy?) While it is certain that the inactions of the many people who watched Holly take a “beatdown” were reprehensible and morally despicable, they should not be considered criminal and punishable.

“Every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime.”

I have my own differences of opinion with Walter Block, among them his favorable treatment of abortion on demand and his shrill, unwavering support of the nation of Israel, despite the undeniable fact that the ones who suffer the most (unborn babies, already born babies in Gaza) are destroyed outright by people who are more powerful than they are. In these, I find his position on libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) inconsistent and untenable, and I have written numerous times about his position on abortion. See here and here for examples.1 Still, I find his arguments about people who are repugnant and despicable to be compelling and I cannot, to be consistent with my own philosophy, find any good reason to overturn it, at least, legally. There are moral arguments to be made here, but they ought to be presented to those who are the “active sinners” and not against Block, et alia, who only defend their right to live in such a way.

As it relates to Holly and the mob, numerous questions arise.

  1. Did certain people refuse or neglect to call 911?
  2. Was this refusal/inaction morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and/or selfish?
  3. Should people be punished because they are morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and selfish?
  4. If so, what charges should be brought against them? What should be the prescribed punishment? Would these be based on principles of reason and truth or pure emotion, public will, and political pandering?
  5. Could prosecution under the law ever be considered as running afoul of a person’s religious beliefs, i.e., that everything is pre-ordained and to interfere is going against God’s will, therefore, personally detrimental? Does civil “responsibility” ever trump spiritual submission to one’s higher power? If so, what would it look like and where are the limits, if any?
  6. Etc., etc., etc…..ad infinitum.

More importantly, this argument falls into the philosophical arena known as “positive” law, which basically seeks to make people good by virtue of legislation. I am strongly opposed to the notion as I understand that only God can make people good and that only through the personal acceptance of Jesus Christ and the life-altering influence of the Holy Spirit. Confession of sin, repentance, and change for the better cannot be legislated nor made mandatory, ordered, and enforced, it must be voluntary and freely sought. The first sentence in the description of positive law in Wikipedia (yes, I am citing Wikipedia) describes it quite well and flows with my own version.

“Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action.” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

In our relevant case, Holly would like to see a government mandated ordinance which obliges and specifies an action, such action being that people who see someone being beaten would be compelled by law to make an attempt to correct the situation in some way. Whether this means getting physically involved as Holly did or simply dialing 911 and alerting the officials while maintaining a safe distance really does not matter. The important thing to remember is that action MUST be taken under threat of punishment, i.e., “You will DO good, dammit, whether you want to or not. It is The Law. Doing nothing is not allowed. After all, your brother’s (sister’s) life, health, and well-being are at stake.”2

With all due respect to Holly and the millions of like-minded people around the world, whether to become involved or not is a moral issue, one to be decided solely within the conscience of an individual who knows what is right and what is wrong. It is not, ought not be, a legal issue with sanctions imposed for lack of activity in the event of a traumatic event. To attempt to make it a legal matter would only open up a subjectively interpreted can of worms and do nothing at all to change human behavior.3 “Love your neighbor as you love yourself…” is the operative phrase here which carries the thought of personal self-sacrifice on behalf of your neighbor, even at the risk of your own life and Holly’s action showed this explicitly. However, this is not the same as loving your neighbor under compulsion because you are afraid of the trouble that a disinterested third party might inflict on you if you don’t. The two are worlds apart.

What is really astounding to me are the vast numbers of people (finger-pointing is not necessary, you know them) who are willing to castigate and condemn the bystanders in Cincinnati, yet who do or say absolutely nothing to stop the aggressive actions of the Israeli State against the impoverished, helpless population of Gaza. Where is the outcry from those who think that ‘There outta be a law’? Why do we laud and support Holly in her drive to make human inaction illegal, yet criminalize human action (anti-semitic speech, BDS, street protests, etc.) when it infringes on our own pet issues? The only answer I can come up with is that people are, generally speaking, driven by emotion, but recoil at the thought of applying consistency of thought and action, i.e., reason and repentance, to their own daily lives. The fact that the current situation in Gaza is shot through with religious overtones does nothing to alleviate the situation and, in my opinion, actually makes it more difficult to resolve through rational discourse. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Only it doesn’t. The beatdowns continue, and will, until morally upright people from all walks of life stop expecting someone else to solve these problems via brute force and become actively involved in them personally, abandoning the idea that man-made laws can overcome and correct the evil-ridden apathy which afflicts human nature.

  1. BC (Before Covid), I was writing essays and articles on abortion, an issue about which I have strongly held beliefs. For instance, I would have no problem at all with prosecuting the “doctors and nurses” who perform them, charging them with first-degree murder and punishing them severely if convicted. I am ambivalent about bringing such charges against women who abort for various reasons which are too numerous and complex to mention here. You can access the postings here. When Covid hit, I made the decision to focus on that as I believed it was the greater and more pressing threat to our lives and liberties. Now that Covid is receding into the rearview mirror (not necessarily over), I may again pick up the thread to preserve innocent, unborn human life. ↩︎
  2. This brings to mind the tragic case of Kitty Genovese, a young woman who was stabbed numerous times and raped as she lay dying in New York City in 1964. At the time, the New York Times claimed that 37 people had witnessed the incident from their apartment windows but did nothing to stop it with the exception of one man who shouted, “Leave that girl alone!”, but did not go to her aid. The Times assertion has since been debunked and it is not known how many (few) people actually witnessed the crime, but the story stuck and still resonates today. The incident resembles what is known as the Bystander Effect and was a strong impetus to the development of the 911 system we have today. ↩︎
  3. Given the prevalence of mobile smart phones today, it would be possible for a zealous prosecutor to geo-locate every single phone which was in the vicinity at the time, identify who owned the phone, and charge them with the crime of “not calling 911 in an emergency”. Untold numbers of people could have their lives turned upside down and wrecked under such a scenario, especially if the prosecutor was prone to using these instances as stepping-stones to higher office, which many are prone to do. ↩︎

Weep, Our Beloved Country

Roger Mitchell5 Comments

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/03/no_author/international-law-is-now-suspended-if-not-eliminated/

“A law cannot exist if there are individuals or organizations that fall within its scope but which stand “above the law” — can’t be prosecuted no matter how flagrantly they violate it. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION-STONE OF LAW, and if any exceptions can be allowed, those are ONLY the ones that are stated IN the law as being NOT within its scope — and, thus, the fundamental principle of law is that a law exists ONLY if all individuals or organizations that fall within its scope are subject to investigation and prosecution if they violate it. Otherwise, it’s NOT a “law.” To call it a law is false. The United States Government and its colonies such as Israel can’t be prosecuted for violating international law no matter how flagrantly they violate it. Consequently, international law no longer exists. What DOES exist, then? The traditional ethic does: Might makes right.”

Might makes right. More than anything else, this philosophy is the one which most people subscribe to and practice, regardless of what they privately espouse. It is the order of modern American politics which stands for holding to a particular model of government until power is seized, at which point all the “true” points are discarded in favor of raw power. Because we can, and the foot-soldiers in the trenches cheer and applaud everything which the top command is doing, whether it adheres to the principles espoused or not. Because the “war” must be won. By fair means or foul, and it doesn’t matter who gets hurt in the process. War is painful, after all, and the Dastardly Democrats or the Rascally Republicans must be beaten down, never to rise again, in order to usher in the Golden Age of Utopia for All Humanity. Er, I mean, all persons because it’s forbidden to create a label which includes the letters written as “…man…” Mankind, humanity, humankind, human beings, human rights, etc. All gone. All outlawed. All discarded. Because…discrimination, you know, which simply is nothing more than making a choice between different options and possibilities. There ought to be a law.

But seriously, folks.

I don’t follow Eric Zuesse. I do read his articles from time to time and I am never disappointed, even though I may disagree with him vehemently. In this case, I think he is spot on and his argument can be applied directly to what is happening today in American jurisprudence. Namely, the idea that the Executive Branch of federal government can do anything it wishes and no one will complain. Because…they can. Might makes right, indeed!

A law is not a law IF the people who administer the Law are above the Law and are not held accountable by the Law IF they transgress the Law. Can it be put more plainly than that? In other words, if Donald Trump, and Co., decide to move in a certain direction regardless of the Law, who is going to hold him (them) accountable? After all, they are the Power and, as everyone knows, Might makes Right.

Right? Of course, right.

OK, enough of beating around the bush. Let’s bring this in for a landing.

We hear all the time from “Conservatives” that we must “return” (as if we ever left it) to The Constitution (the highest law which cannot be transcended), yet the Constitution declares these rights (of the individual) to be inviolate. Meaning that they cannot be superseded by any law, whether Congressional, Judicial, or Executive, or regardless as to whether they are popular, conservatively speaking.

  1. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” .

Pretty plain, right? Cut and dried, right? No person, right? Unless, of course, this applies to an “illegal immigrant” who also happens to be a member of a “terrorist” gang (designated by the Executive Branch, i.e., the President) as a threat to the “national interest”. In that case, those who are guilty (whether they are charged or not is irrelevant) of this “crime” (violation of law) are subject to immediate deportation to their country of origin OR removal to a prison system run by the El Salvadoran government, which we pay buku bucks for, generously provided by the US taxpayer.

This does not appear to be any different than the “war” waged on La Cosa Nostra, i.e., Mafia, which has been ongoing for decades and does not appear to have an end point. Except that the action against Tren de Aragua has the support and vociferous backing of half the population of the US, which Donald Trump is counting on to allow him to completely circumvent the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which all his supporters depend on to keep the country safe from the depredations of a tyrannical government. We MUST get back to the Constitution, right? Except when it is convenient to discard it, of course.

Whatever happened to “Innocent, until Proven Guilty”? Does this mean anything, anymore?

I admit that Tren de Aragua probably is criminal. It is probably based on force, violent in nature, to achieve its ends, i.e., the compliance of those it seeks to subjugate. That being said, is there any realistic, theoretical, philosophical, difference between this one specific gang and others which are larger and have much more power, e.g., the United States of America, which can be said to impose its power and influence around the world? As far as I can see, the only difference is one of size and scope.

I could applaud the current administration for its stance and actions, except for one niggling reminder. First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a socialist. Yes, I said nothing when those in power came for Tren de Aragua because I was not a member of the group and, besides, I liked what Trump & Co. was doing. Never mind that the end of this is that when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me.

Should we be concerned? Absolutely, yes, we should, but not necessarily in the manner so prevalent in conservative circles today. If the government can arrest and punish anyone at all based solely on an accusation, then who is safe? Am I safe? Are you? How do you know?

“By their works, you shall know them.”

What is most interesting about the article by Eric Zuesse is that he mentions the Peasant’s Revolt of 1525, which resulted in the deaths of perhaps as many as 100, 000 common, ordinary, everyday, persons who simply wanted an end to the abuses perpetrated on them by those more powerful, and which can be summarized as follows:

“Laws should be made more equitable so that all are equal before it and no one gets harsher or more lenient treatment for the same crime.” — https://www.worldhistory.org/Twelve_Articles/

Imagine that! The Law applied equally and without discrimination! No one, not even Donald Trump, Elon Musk, nor Chuck Schumer above it!

We have a long way to go.