This concept isn't to propose a new system of governance, it is an attempt to describe an inherent characteristic of society, all societies.
Specifically I want it seen how unnecessary lawmakers are because all harmful behavior is already forbidden.
Generally, lawmakers spend their time exempting their privileged pals from our law. They say our law is too strict and in order for technology to progress, they need to protect them from this law.
So government grants industry the power to pollute our air, poison our food, destroy our land, and government workers are granted the power to beat us, molest us, kill us, and steal from us, all with impunity from society's one law.
Your thought experiment of, would someone believe that the existence of juries (any judicial system) in and of itself be determined by some individuals to be a use of force applied to them...is a great point.
I began with the premise that all harmful behavior is naturally prohibited (at least by the individual being harmed)
You came back with how do you define harm/where does the line get drawn.
I suggested that the individual determines oneself to be harmed with 12 peers unanimously confirming the harm would be a good check.
---You asked if that check could be considered a use of force by some.
The answer is yes. -It is absolutely applying force to them. Yes. You apply force to man who is harming you or who has harmed you. You stop him and you make yourself whole with his property. The jury is the mechanism to confirm the harm and authorize the use of force to make the harmed whole.
Remember, Part 2 of my premise is that the only acceptable use of non-consensual violence is to defense against those who have/would harm another.
The real question, and point you brought up is excellent and valid. What is a way to authorize such a use of force? Obviously the individual gets to defend himself at the moment of harm, to limit/stop the harm. But once the damage is done, how does he go about making himself whole? We have centuries of history using juries to confirm the claim and authorize the necessary force needed to perfect the claim. I happen to think it is very flawed because of the points you brought up: education, agenda, etc...But, I suppose if I were in the hot seat and it was a jury of MY PEERS, I would have more faith.
It is absolutely flawed though, but it does answer your question. Where does the line get drawn?-12 peers would have to agree with a hair-brained theory of prosecution...and they do, every f'n day.
For me, i am not concerned with others using "force" or even "aggression" upon me or others. Force and aggression are neutral. This conversation is an aggressive use of force. Force that harms is harmful. Force that benefits is beneficial. Same with any aspect of our existence.
Behavior that harms including non-consensual violence is a different matter all together.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: