RE: "Statistics" are irrelevant
They are an attempt at magic incantations, because you believe they will affect the molesters. They won't. The rulers will get away with it with the enthusiastic support of most of the statists around you, no matter what they do to you, and no matter what you said to them. I've seen it over and over.
You cannot have justice without a functioning justice system built upon the principle of due process and the presumption of innocence with the benefit of a doubt. To have a system that is honest it must be guarded by vigilant people who see the good of such a function. The things you have seen have a clear reason behind them, and the reason those oaths aren't honoured is partially on those that broke their promises to the people, and partially because the people stopped holding their public officials accountable, and left the justice in the hands of thugs.
Why is the presumption on governance? I assume liberty. Unless someone declares themselves a slave by pretending that government/the State is legitimate. Then that's on them, but they aren't me.
Freedom would be more apt but the presumption is Self Rule-Sovereignty.
And a real justice system can not be built, run, or controlled by a coercive monopoly like government/The State.
I prefer the word "liberty", as "freedom" means doing whatever you want to do, while liberty means the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate anyone else. It's why I never promote freedom- some people want to violate others.
But, yes, self rule. And sovereignty... which means oyu would self-rule.
Actually, freedom never meant doing whatever you want to do regardless of other's freedom, and liberty has in turn not only at its core the concept of Freedom itself (liberty is freedom to do anything blah blah blah pulled it out of your ass) but has been used first as a Nautical Term, and it used to denote the Libertines who sound akin to what you willfully ignorantly consider freedom. We have been through this before, I have posted the LONG history of freedom which in numerous instances equates directly with brotherhood and love, peace, and it is clear what the Signatories to the Declaration agreed on, Not Liberty which Sailors had when they got off the ship, as they still do, but freedom, as in Free, Sovereign and Independent (without a Captain, without a Master). You seem to prefer your version on events despite being diligently presented with things that are Contrary to what you believe and claim.
A real justice system is a red herring if it's talking about ANYTHING other than a Functioning Justice system built upon the principle of due process and the presumption of innocence with the benefit of a doubt. To have a system that is honest it must be guarded by vigilant people who see the good of such a function. The things you have seen have a clear reason behind them, and the reason those oaths aren't honoured is partially on those that broke their promises to the people, and partially because the people stopped holding their public officials accountable, and left the justice in the hands of thugs.
The Government/State is only people, the function is almost always identical: Serve the People, in all its iterations, the method we have is Voluntary and Anarchist, and all because Sovereignty is Secured in the people, not in State/National or Federal Government.
Freedom doesn't mean violating others, btw, and what you consider coercive is there only for the function of bringing the individual before the justice, and that is a piss poor way to lose any kind of integrity to the position that Government for the people, by the people, of the people is Coercive or Rule By Farce.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." ~ Thomas Jefferson
And this is why I can't take you seriously.
You can't me seriously because I don't adhere to the Opinions of a Slave Owning hypocrite? How did you get away without addressing ONE thing I mentioned, such as Freedom and it's rich history, the fact that Freedom is the subject of the Definitive Treaty of Peace and Declaration that preceded it, the fact that liberty has always been the term used to indicate a sailor off for the moment on break from his duty on the ship, and that liberty was used to denote the Libertines or the fact that freedom doesn't mean the freedom to invalidate other's freedoms at all, or that The Government By the Peolple, for the people and of the people isn't Coercive of Rule By Force, but Anarchist and libretarian, also you didn't explain What coercion and force you've reffered to, I guess you're going to pander to the Idiot Anarchist Fanboys with another red herring that at it's core has the opinion that law doesn't matter because tyrants use the law, in the same way, that guns are evil because evil men use guns. Tell me again, is Anarchy No Laws or No Rulers?
You do know, don't you, that the truth is the truth no matter who said it. Right? That is what liberty is. You can deny it, redefine it, or have a tantrum. It doesn't change it into what you want it to be to point out that Jefferson didn't live up to the truth he recognized. Sorry.
You do realize that it's "rightful liberty" and not simply liberty and that I never debated that rightful liberty is and isn't only that Freedom is a much more apt concept that has been fought and enunciated in many treaties, not liberty.
It's a tantrum the fact that I pointed out how you haven't addressed anything I have said or brought up? I don't need to redefine liberty, it's the Foundational Meaning that it's based on that I brought into the discussion that you seem to think is "redefining" and therefore redefining is what happens when you take that established concept and use it to mean otherwise or more than that, such as liberty being a Nautical Term first and foremost and then being used to mean everything that could be likened to a break from duty, or freedom from duty.
You made the claim that freedom is the freedom to invalidate others freedoms, and you have been called out on it and you have nothing to bring to substantiate that insipid insinuation and redifining liberty has been done long ago, but you don't care for facts as is obvious, and you've yet to address any of the things I've said, here's a quick recap:
Freedom does not mean Freedom to do anything.
Liberty has been redefined-it meant something and now it means something more.
Laws, both man-made and natural define and limit freedom, like the Golden Rule and aren't the despotic tyrant's will.
Government by the people for the people and of the people isn't Coercive and Rule by Force.
Coercion is necessary to bring people before justice.
Freedom is a much more apt word to describe the concept of "liberty" and the word free has a rich history of being used to mean love, brotherhood, peace and such, unlike liberty.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/free
I dare you to find a richer and beautifully evident word or concept that shares any liking of the richness that stands behind Free.
https://steemit.com/news/@tftproject/4-years-ago-hundreds-of-protesters-proved-that-armed-americans-can-take-on-the-us-govtand-win-1523320730
How many anarchists do you think assembled there? 1? 2? 3?
The people who wanted liberty organized and armed themselves. The people who wanted to make a name for themselves dawdled around for over a year and then wrote a letter to claim credit for the revolution. Then the ones who wanted a new central government staged the Constitutional coup.
What are you talking about, what Constitutional Coup, we are discussing things in fairly recent times and not Revolution or whatever "people" you want to drag into here with your bullshit insinuations that accuse them of "claiming credit", aren't we?