RE: Thinking Scientifically About Expanding Freedom (Accessing Network Nodes/Voters In The USA)
This number is sufficient to nullify every law, if even one of these people were to be called for jury duty.For those that cannot see this is true, consider a panel of 12 jury members, each having a 5% chance of knowing about jury nullification and applying it.
This means 0.95 multiplied by itself 12 times: 54% to prosecute
Up this to 10% and you have .9 multiplied by itself 12 times: 28% to prosecute.
If even a small percent of the population can agree with voluntaryism (which is, truthfully, proper anarchism), then governments would find it almost impossible to win cases for victimless crimes.
I can definitely confirm that introducing yourself as a voluntaryist and explaining what that means works much better than introducing yourself as an anarchist... simply because governments and their media have put a very bad image into the general populations mind where anarchism is concerned.
Thanks for the well thought out article! I'd be screaming happy as well if we could simply start downsizing government (minarchism). I'm only 42, but I have seen a massive shift away from freedom in those years. I cannot imagine what the my father or grandmother has seen us lose in their lifetimes.
Thanks Tony! You're precisely correct. I'm glad you noted the math from my prior article on #JuryIndependence :)
One thing to clarify. You wrote: "If even a small percent of the population can agree with voluntaryism (which is, truthfully, proper anarchism), then governments would find it almost impossible to win cases for victimless crimes."
Agreeing with voluntaryism does absolutely nothing if the person is "kicked off the jury" during voir dire. Moreover, this happens 95% of the time, giving prosecutors 99% conviction rates. The entire battle for individual freedom consists of getting the people who are willing to nullify the law seated on the jury, in spite of well-designed attempts of the judge and prosecutor to identify/profile them, and kick them off in "voir dire."
The prior statement is so true that voluntaryists should think of the term voir dire as being synonymous with unfreedom or tyranny.
You wrote: I can definitely confirm that introducing yourself as a voluntaryist and explaining what that means works much better than introducing yourself as an anarchist... simply because governments and their media have put a very bad image into the general populations mind where anarchism is concerned.
I am in complete agreement with this point. Additionally, I might mention that well-meaning information science students or "cyberneticists" might well disagree that anarchy, as defined by any existing English dictionary, is even a good goal. Several definitions of the term anarchy imply an absence of control, rather than emergent order. Moreover, robust social organization is emergent, and decentralized.
I'm a decentralist, and a voluntaryist, but not really an "anarchist."
And, as long as democracy is not misdefined to mean "suffrage only," I'm very much in favor of well-designed democracy. Contrary to Mencken, intelligence actually does arise from stupid nodes. Anyone who disagrees is invited to read "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins, or "How to Create a Mind" by Ray Kurzweil.
When I hear "Voir Dire", I hear "Jury Tampering"... but maybe that is just me.
For those that feel they are "lying" if they say no to the voir dire questions about whether you would vote against the evidence, I say keep in mind the fact that lawful is different than legal.
Lawful relates to factual law.
Legal depends on legislation enacted by politicians.
It is perfectly lawful to nullify a law, so looked at properly one cannot be accused of perjury on such questions as criminal charges are all under the guise of 'legal', not 'lawful'. You can uphold law (no victim no crime) while nullifying legality.
And thanks for the recommended reading. I have no use for democracy, but could potentially respect a democratic republic. The difference in my mind being that the latter upholds rights that cannot be taken away by any majority.