Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Global Warming
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 20 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Global Warming (Read 1926 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34470
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #60 - Jan 13th, 2018 at 7:29pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 13th, 2018 at 7:00pm:
Dodge, evade, dodge, dodge, evade.
I keep telling you the libertarian solution. You deep saying I'm dodging rhe question.

I must ask you to please repeat the question you think I'm dodging. Thanks.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3855
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Global Warming
Reply #61 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 10:59am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 13th, 2018 at 7:29pm:
I keep telling you the libertarian solution. You deep saying I'm dodging rhe question.

I must ask you to please repeat the question you think I'm dodging. Thanks.


I have to back Jeff up on this one.  He has answered your question.  He believes in litigation, rather than regulation, to stop pollution and he applies the same idea to "global warming."

That answer is inconsistent with libertarianism and inconsistent with Jeff's insistence on application of common law as the solution to modern problems, but it is an answer and not a dodge.

You might ask Jeff how a Jury, deciding a case based only on information the judge allowed it to have and on instructions by the judge on how to consider that information, can be anything but a hand puppet of the judge.


  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Global Warming
Reply #62 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 11:49am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 10:59am:
I have to back Jeff up on this one.  He has answered your question.  He believes in litigation, rather than regulation, to stop pollution and he applies the same idea to "global warming."

That answer is inconsistent with libertarianism and inconsistent with Jeff's insistence on application of common law as the solution to modern problems, but it is an answer and not a dodge.

You might ask Jeff how a Jury, deciding a case based only on information the judge allowed it to have and on instructions by the judge on how to consider that information, can be anything but a hand puppet of the judge.




Judges decide on what information a jury "can't" have, not what they "can" have. To suggest otherwise is just batshit crazy.

Don't you understand why? Jeff might because he's not a libertarian like you yet?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7680
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #63 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:09pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 10:59am:
I have to back Jeff up on this one.  He has answered your question.  He believes in litigation, rather than regulation, to stop pollution and he applies the same idea to "global warming."


As I said earlier in the thread, once the hypothetical tipping point is reached, you can't sue the polluters because most of them are probably already dead.

It's the slow bullet problem. It makes litigation not a viable solution for this.

The Opposition wrote on Jan 10th, 2018 at 3:06pm:
Hypothetically, once the tipping point is reached and the damage caused, the people who caused most of it may be dead, and the remaining polluters won't have the funds to cover being sued. Tort system is a non-solution in this case.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34470
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #64 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:37pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 10:59am:
That answer is inconsistent with libertarianism and inconsistent with Jeff's insistence on application of common law as the solution to modern problems, but it is an answer and not a dodge.

You might ask Jeff how a Jury, deciding a case based only on information the judge allowed it to have and on instructions by the judge on how to consider that information, can be anything but a hand puppet of the judge.


Juries have original jurisdiction over courts where they have been empaneled. That includes the judges.

Juries are charged with seeing that justice is done. That is their duty.

If a judge "instructs" a jury (and judges do not have the power to command juries) to do something the jury sees as unjust, the jury rules.


That is our law and an essential part of maintaining a free civilized society.

Edit: I'd like to expand on this if anyone is interested.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34470
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #65 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:48pm
Print Post  
Juries can stop the proceedings in a court and tell the judge they want more information about whatever, and the judge must see to it that the jury gets what they want. Judges are public servants, well paid and often tenured, but not our masters. They exist to serve us, and juries are superior in law in America to judges.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3855
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Global Warming
Reply #66 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:05pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:48pm:
Juries can stop the proceedings in a court and tell the judge they want more information about whatever, and the judge must see to it that the jury gets what they want.


Jeff, that is simply not true.  I think you know it isn't.  Are you doing that Socratic irony thing again?

Attorneys on both sides may move to exclude evidence and the judge can and does often rule that it is inadmissible.  The intent is for juries to not even know about that evidence but if they do, through the newspapers or whatever, the judge isn't going to give it to them having ruled it inadmissible.

Speaking of newspapers, the judge has the authority to order jurors not to read newspapers or watch the news, either at all or as it relates to the case.  The judge can enforce that by sequestering the jury.  The jury can be kept confined 24/7 in a case in which the defendant is out on bail.   

Quote:
Judges are public servants, well paid and often tenured, but not our masters. They exist to serve us, and juries are superior in law in America to judges.


False also.  If a jury finds a man guilty or a crime or liable for a tort, he can appeal to superior courts up to his state supreme court and to federal courts up to the USSC hoping one of them will reverse the jury's decision as they often do.  If a man is found not-guilty by a jury, he is supposed to be protected from appeal by the double jeopardy principle.  But in practice, the government has found ways around that.  Officer "you're crappity smacked" who shot an unarmed man for pulling up his pants was found not guilty by a jury.  Now the federal government may go after him for the exact same action but call it a civil rights violation to get around double jeopardy.




  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34470
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #67 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:22pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:05pm:
Jeff, that is simply not true.
It's true in our courts.
Lack of knowledge does not change the law.

Juries are a check on the power of the King's courts. That's why they were created.

In order to be a check on the power of the King's courts, juries must have jurisdiction over the court, and they do. They still do. It's fundamental law.

Tyrants never liked the idea and never will.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3855
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Global Warming
Reply #68 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:30pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:22pm:
It's true in our courts.
Lack of knowledge does not change the law.

Juries are a check on the power of the King's courts. That's why they were created.

In order to be a check on the power of the King's courts, juries must have jurisdiction over the court, and they do. They still do. It's fundamental law.

Tyrants never liked the idea and never will.


Ok, so you are literally saying that if a judge rules evidence inadmissible, the jury will still be able to require it to be shown to them and that their verdicts can never be overturned by judges.  Real good.

BTW, where is that law written that says that juries can disregard a judge's instructions?



  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3855
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Global Warming
Reply #69 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:32pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:09pm:
As I said earlier in the thread, once the hypothetical tipping point is reached, you can't sue the polluters because most of them are probably already dead.


But once that point is reached, no political or economic system will stop the extinction of all life, right?  So no economic or political system will bring it back.  The only question is whether we would want to live out our remaining days under tyranny or freedom.




  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 20
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Global Warming
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy