Comment: Competitive Linchpin?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Trial by Jury (see in situ)

Competitive Linchpin?

I am in the process of reading Trial by Jury by Spooner. Josf, our Liberties rest in that concept as far as I can see. Is it something that needs to be reinstituted? IMO, that one single concept would take care of everything. What is needed? A Constitutional Amendment? What? IMO that would take care of our 3 points. End the Fed, IRS, bring the troops home. What do you think? I think it is the competitive link that is missing from everything. Maybe we wouldn't even need competitive currencies so much if we had true trial by jury? Because that alone would keep everything in check.

But at some time, and I am only in chapter 2 so Spooner may answer, Trial by Jury must have been lost in England because the church became dominant and Believers were persecuted. People were burned at the stake for translating and printing the Bible in English, etc. Or maybe "peers" became so influenced they no longer understood the principles of Liberty...like today in our Land? Anyways things were so bad people fled to America. So I am trying to understand that portion of history.

I haven't read the Articles of Confederation, but do you know if Trial by Jury was addressed in them? I gave someone this link yesterday: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=65 In that link you will find the words:

“But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights”

I wonder what “ancient charter” is being referenced? But it sounds to me like the Danbury Baptists were not fairing so well under a Democratic Federated Republic. Or was their state maybe still practicing some law as set forth under English rule? I guess that could be the case.

If you can tell me, why is not true Trial by Jury the missing link to Liberty, and why does Dr. Paul not speak to it? Or maybe he does and my ears are not keen to it. Maybe economics is just at curtain hiding Liberty via Trial by Jury?