I agree that does mitigate some of the unfairness of the trial. However, the judge is still the one that gets to uphold or dismiss arguments. But, if the jury is informed, they can just nullify the law.
There is no reason we can give that would require any given person to accept the authority of the various state courts, government trials (by jury or not) are invalid because there is no liberty or contract in the arbitration, much less the ‘laws’ and statutes of the state.
Sorry, but disputes have to be arbitrated. Currently state courts do that. Their authority is their guns.
in government, authority is often used interchangeably with the term “power”. However, their meanings differ: while “power” is defined as ‘the ability to influence somebody to do something that (s)he could not have done’ , “authority” refers to a claim oflegitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power.
they have power, not legitimacy. ( they have no authority.)
Yes, along the same lines ‘somebody has to own property’ and the government has a gun; that doesn’t mean they actually have a claim on that property.
Fine. I don’t give a shit about that.
fine. maybe one day you will say what you give a shit about.
I picture foot stomping out of the room, slamming the door, and turning up the radio really loud with some shaking in the hands and knees.