Does it violate NAP?Submitted by BILL3 on Tue, 06/10/2014 - 01:30
Arrest - seizing a person suspected or accused of a crime against his will and holding him captive.
Jury trial - How can the democratic vote or consensus of random people justify the inflicting of loss of liberty on a person?
Would NAP conforming security agencies be permitted to arrest and hold suspects for trial?
Arrest and trial are not self defense. In essence, a person is kidnapped and imprisoned on suspicion, pending a decision by some other people.
The principle of convincing some arbitrary number of people, beyond their subjective reasonable doubt, of the victim's guilt, is essentially a democratic principle. The principle assumes it is valid for one group of people to deny liberty or life to another person, and decide their fate, on the basis of a group consensus.
The punishment inflicted on the accused by the tribunal, to which he never consented to be subjected, is aggression. It is violence and coercion which is not in self defense. It works on the principle that twelve against one (the jury against the accused) is a sufficient ratio to override the rights of the accused.
Why twelve, instead of two, instead of two hundred?
Nothing in the arrest or trial of a suspect can be construed as self defense. It is, rather, the claim to jurisdiction over another person merely on suspicion and accusation, and the claim of a right to inflict harm or loss of liberty on that person, on the basis of what twelve random strangers think.
This applies equally to any security agency that a person has not voluntarily contracted to consent to. It too would be committing aggression in the process of arrest, trial and punishment.
It would seem to me that arrest on suspicion or accusation, as well as trial by any court to which the individual did not willingly subject himself by contract, would constitute aggression. This is so whether carried out by a security agency or by a publicly funded court, and so would violate NAP.
Furthermore, a person can always deny that they contracted to any such subjection (or to any contract, in fact). A contract based on signature is just a scrap of paper. If the alleged signer disputes it, that too must go before judgment, before a panel or tribunal of some sort, for a verdict.
The person is then essentially accused of breaking a contract, and so that accusation in turn is itself subject to a decision, necessarily by third parties.
This tribunal, or arbitration, suffers from all the problems described above for general trial where no contractual consent is claimed to have been granted.
On what grounds can one person, or group of people, override the claim of another person that they never agreed to a contract?
On what grounds can they then forcibly hold them to terms which they claim they never consented to?
It seems that any arrest or trial of another person inherently violates NAP, as all depend on validating aggression on the basis of some arbitrary consensus of other people, whether twelve or some other number.
Can a democratic principle of consensus ever nullify a person's right to be free of aggression?
If not, then all arrests and trials are invalid on NAP.
If it can, then that means the principle of consensus or democratic judgment is valid, as such.
If its valid for a group to decide the fate of an individual, this establishes the whole principle behind coercive government.
Pick your poison.