Types of Government: Democracy vs. Republic vs. Oligarchy and how to get out of jury duty

I found this video on facebook and found it very informative.

The discussion below are the words of Allison Oldak. You can follow her at AnarchyAllison

I really enjoyed this video, especially with it's explanation of due process as being pivotal to the difference between a republic and democracy.

Democracies are one vote systems of government while republics are three. In a republic your first vote is on election day when you chose your representative, that is your only vote in a democracy. Your second vote is when you serve on a grand jury and your third when you serve on a jury for a case that goes to trial.







Juries have two duties but since the Dred Scott decision have only been informed of one, deciding the facts of the case. The second is deciding the legality of the law. Despite the law being slaves are property no matter what territory they were in, Nothern juries were overwhelming voting "not guilty" thus nullifying the law and setting slaves free.






It is your power to interpret the law that ensures your freedom. It makes you more powerful than all three branches of the federal government. If you ever want to get out of jury duty, during the voir dire process inform the court that you have the right to interpret the law. You will be immediately dismissed from the court room. Much more quickly than feigning to be racist or incapable of speaking english. (continued)
 
 
Liberty (anarchy) is rooted in the philosophy of self ownership and the principle of non-aggression. All individuals are sovereign. They own their person and are endowed with the abilities to think and act for themselves. The video titled the philosophy of liberty does an excellent job or explaining this and especially the relation of your existence in time. I'll quote it now with this: your future is your life, your present is your liberty and your past can be demonstrated in your property. Justly acquired property is the product of your expenditure of your life and liberty, thus making it apart of you which no one else is entitled to.







Using violence or the threat of it or fraud to take your life, your liberty or property is immoral no matter if it's a single individual or many doing it. If an exchange isn't voluntary then there has been a violation of property rights (either your right to your own person or to your personal property).






Government is basically a group of people with a monopoly on initiating force. Government is perpetuated by taxation, which is inherently violent. Because taxation isn't voluntary it is an inherent violation of property rights (continued)
 
In anarchy no person has a right (that governments assume to have) to violate the property of another. No one is entitled to anyone else's life. All violations of private property are treated equally as being heinous with no exceptions being made because a particular group of people calls itself a certain name (government, police, the New York Rangers)







The video touches upon the fact that all property would be private but explains that would make travel too cumbersome. This isn't true. If communities and roads were privately owned you'd want more business and traffic flowing into them. Commerce and travel are encouraged and highlights of free societies, as this country was once noted for. The narrator believes anarchy is impractical because property rights would need to be enforced but the protection of property rights is supposed to be one of the very limited functions of a republican form of government.






Not all uses of a privately owned road by those who don't expressly pay for it to be maintained in a voluntary society have to be considered a form of trespass. If I wanted to open a bar I would not open it on a road that only allowed those who belonged to the community to travel on it. If I owned a road that stretched through mountains and swamp, I'd probably adjust my fees to a toll collection instead of trying to establish a community and contract around it.

 The basic misperception of anarchy is that it entails violence. People calling themselves anarchists who initiate force on others are only anarchists in name. Property owners will see fit that their property is cared for because that responsibility falls on them alone unless they want to voluntary contract that responsibility out to another... And undoubtedly there will be markets for that. Sherifs. Private police forces. Private courts (maritime law was entirely private and property rights were preserved!)

Basically, there will always be people who commit crimes. Anarchy ensures no one has immunity to commit them.
 
Wish I had more time, but I figured I would put this out there.  Feel free to comment.  I still need time to review myself.
 
Thanks for reading,
 
Frank
 
Now, back to work