IRC log started Fri Aug 2 21:51 Welcome to tonight's scheduled discussion on #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to bring to your notice that: 1) Discussions on this channel are copyrighted by myself and Pankaj Saxena (Subetai). You may log the discussion for your own personal use, but you may not redistribute it in any form whatsoever without written permission from the channel owners. 2) The discussion will be held in keyword-mode. As always, if there is someone you would like to invite to the channel (who in your judgement would not disrupt the channel), please message Subetai. Hello everyone, and welcome to tonight's discussion on Subpoena power under objective law. I became interested in tonight's topic due to the current thread on it in humanities.philosophy.objectivism. Of course, the fundamental question here is, does subponea power, in either criminal or civil cases, violate the non initiation of force principle? But, before we get to that central issue, we need to clarify a few points. First, just what is subponea power? How is it exercised under the current judicial system in the United States? I would appreciate it if anyone here with legal knowledge could help us out. re Jump right in anytime, everyone :) Isn't it when someone witness a crime, he can be "forced" to testify in a court of law? The power given to attorneys to call anyone to testify before a court of law regarding any knowledge they have that is relevant to the case being tried? Also an order to surrender some material effect before a court. He doesn't have to be a witness, Sean. Brad: right. That too. okay, I want to concentrate more on testimony than on physical evidence tonight Any further elaboration? All that's needed is that the attorney thinks that the person has some information relevant to his case, whether or not he was a witness to any crime. It is an order to appear in court with a penalty of some kind if you do not. Don't subpoena's have to be approved by a judge? I don't think it is a power possessed of attorneys or prosecutors, is it? n. a write ordering a person to attend a law court. Does a judge have to appove this order, or may any attorney do it? Brad: No, the judge doesn't need to approve the Subpoena, as I understand it. <> SeanS is using Concise Oxford Dictionary 9th. Wright: The attorney of record in the case, or his agent(s). Subetai: That is surprising. Police have to secure judicial approval for search warrants. Sube- no, I think he does.. it's in effect an arrest warrant Hmm. I seem to recall that there was some controversy over whether Clinton could be compled to testify.. there was a hearing before a judge No -- it isn't an arrest warrant, because the person is not being charged with a crime. Well, my understanding is that you don't need the judge's approval. Perhaps some lawyer could settle this. Brad - I said "in effect" Well, JonG isn't around tonight, unfortunately Isn't it a right the DEFENDANT has -- to subpoena witnesses in his own defense? you are being forced by the judicial system to be someplace other than where you are Admittedly, my knowledge on this comes from reading Erle Stanley Gardner. Also the prosecutor, Betsy Betsy: It is written in to the US constitution, that a defendent has the right to compell witnesses in his defense. compel Wright: That power is not specifically stated in the constitution -- only for the accused. Both the prosecution and the defense can subpoena anyone. Okay. So, do we all have a firm grasp of what a subpoena is? Subetai: "Anyone"? Are you sure? Any further points on it? You can also subpoena testimony in a civil case, can't you? Brad: That's my understanding. Unless someone can quote the law on that. wright: is the witness forced to testify, or only to show up? Wright: It would be helpful to have an idea of instances. What are they *actually* used for, and how often. I would think that the person whoudl have to have relevant information Wright: Yes, but that's the attorney's decision. joe - only to show up I think once someone is handed a subpoena, he *must* testify, or risk imprisionment. If you refuse to testify, then you can be cited for contempt of court. Brad: Unfortunately, I don't have a legal expert to consult I think a Subpoena says "appear for the purpose of giving testimony" Anyway, we are really more interested in the philosophy behind Subponeas here tonight I would think the prosecution could subpenoa someone too--if it helped prove their case. My next question has already been paritally discussed... Wright: Philosophically, the court must be interested in getting the "whole truth and nothing but the truth". That is the purpose of being forced to testify. What purpose does this power serve? I think that it may be possible that subpoena laws vary from state to state. power=subponena power Wright - to help prevent people from being wrongly punished. And to send guilty defendants to jail. Does it also serve to assure that the guilty are punished? Wright: In the case of defendents, I think it serves the purpose of protecting individuals from arbitrary arrest, and shielding them from the personal evaluation of others, when their rights are at stake under condition of arrest. Those who argue for supoenas usually do so on the grounds that rights would be protected by 1) Not retaliating with force against the wrong person, (2) Keeping a right-violator from getting away with it, and (3) preserving the mechanism (courts and laws) which implements the protection of rights. What about in civil matters? Wright: As far as I know, it goes both ways. Though it is usually used to get convictions. Wright: well, there's congressional subpoena. Tym: Let's not get into that one right now Wright - I would say that any time the state might impose retributive force against someone in any case, criminal or civil), subpoenas help preserve justice. I'm speaking of civil suits.. such as the current one against O.J. Simpson Tym: Yes -- the Supreme Court ruled that because Congress had the right to make laws on matters, it must logically have the power to conduct inquiries into legislative matters. (I am not agreeing, just explainging.) :) Any further thoughts on civil lawsuits? ATlanta was great Wright: I don't think there is any legal differences in subpoenas for either criminal or civil courts...why would there be? Many make a compelling case that it is unfair to compell an innocent third party. If not... I'll move on Here's how I framed the question the last time this came up: do you have a right to withhold information when someone's life, liberty, or property are at stake? Tom: Oh, the two contexts are highly different. back to this issue a little bit later Brad: That's true to some extent, but they are both still trials. Sure! Next question: I have to leave, but I'll put my two cents in before I do. What exactly is meant by "the initiation of physical force?" If that "innocent third party" helps someone get away with murder?? For the 3 reasons Betsy referred to, subpeonas are justified. But there may be a question if someone isn't *uniquely* qualified to provide the required info. Wright: initiating physical action which harms life or property, or prevents the use of property. Force is making physical contact with a person or his property without his consent. Using force initially to violate someones rights In general, would holding an innocent person against his will be considered the initiation of force? Betsy: I was thinking more of civil cases, where someone not a party to a contract, is nevertheless compelled to help adjudicate a dispute. I am just pointing out different view points. Wright: Consider arrests. Wright: Legally, a witness is not just an innocent bystandeer...at least that is the way it is presented on all the detective shows. Wright - in general, yes. But I think the focus shifts to a different context in regard to governmental action in court. Wright: If a person refused to supply testimony that would alter the course of a trial, isn't that similar to fraud ... an _indirect_ form of force? Wright: Yes, which is the subpoena conundrum. I said, in general Not only is the initiation of force outlawed in a proper society -- so is the THREAT of the initiation of force and aiding and abetting someone who itnitates force. Yes excepting suspects in a criminal case (arrests) Betsy: So you are saying then, that to refuse to testify against an accused, is the same as abetting their crime? Betsy, Phil: I don't think you can couch it that way. If a witness *refrains* from testifying he has in no way acted physically. Tym - but I think he has - the government is *his agent*. Okay, this all leads to the main question of the everning: In the interests of protecting the rights of the accused (in a criminal case), as well as the rights of the victim, is it proper for the state to compel an innocent witness to testify? Is such compulsion the initiation of physical force? Why or why not? The position of the courts seems to be that if there is a witness, then that witness is not "innocent" in the sence that "innocent" means "having nothing to do with the crime." He was there, so he was involved. baz: that's the appproach I'm taking. Tym: If you are innocent and I can clear you -- but I don't -- force will be initiated against you because of _me_. evening Betsy: Very well put. Betsy: I think subpoena is valid, but not on those grounds. The fact is he *hasn't* physically done anything. Tym: Sounds like your argument is based on a mind/body dichotomy. Betsy: and a person who lets a guilty man walk through silence is guilty of aiding the crime? Tym: he was there...that's all that matters (as far as the courts are concerned). David: eh? How? Tym: But a witness who can clear you and refuses to testify actually THREATENS you with the initiation of force. Tym - it may be indirect, but the damage is just as real, and the causation is there. If you saw someone commit a murder would it not be in your own best interest to testify against the murderer. ? Glenn: yes, of course. That's not what's at issue here. It is violating the right of the witness if he/she is forced to testify against his/her will. The government is initiating the use of force against the witness. Glenn - that gets iffy. Many "mob movies" are about that question. I think what baz said makes sense. The government is your agent in enforcing just laws, and it would be a consequence of your actions if it took action against an innocent person because you refused to testify. Glenn: Yes. But the point is, can the state compel testimony Subetai: what *actions*? Wright: If that is the only way they can get to the truth. Tym: Your failure to testify. Tym - the law recognizes that sometimes the refusal to do anything is a causative action. <> Tym mulls the idea of looking at it from the standpoint of fraud. Betsy: doesn't the threat of force mean that the person doining he threatening is implying that he will provide the force? otherwise, we can have the marxists telling us that business owners threaten workers with starvation. The state can compel a witness to state his knowledge. If he refuses to speak, that is irrationally withholding evidence. If he lies, that is perjury phil: Right, and that's the way it is always presented. Subetai: That seems to be a key point -- that the government IS your agent, you have delegated your power of retaliatory defense to it, and thus, are party, in some cases, to its actions. The government's actions have your sanction. You have delegated authority to it. Brad: right Brad - yes, that's why perjury is a crime in and of itself. Baz: As in a case where an armed security guard allows a thief to walk right by him.. Brad: that can fall into the social contract trap tho :/ Joe: Not necessarily. A person who does not fulfill his end of a contract "isn't doing anything" but he is violating the other party's rights. So this issue seems very tied up in coming to a clear understanding of delegation and consent of the governed, an issue which interests me greatly, because extant theories are all flawed. Betsy: or if you do not de-ice your sidewalk, and someone slips and falls on it. Tym - but this isn't a "social contract". It's a fact that this is how our government operates - and it was consciously designed this way to protect the innocent from unjust government action. Tym: I don't see a "social contract" thing here. We're talking about a legitimate action of government (trying cases, punishing the guilty). Tym: The "social contract" is one of those flawed theories... :-) Tym - the "social contract" problem disappears when you note that a proper government has authority *because* it's a proper government, not because of any "implied contract". I think the key idea here is the upholding of rights Sube, baz: saying the gvt. is yr "agent" is only true if in fact you say so. At issue as well is: what is a witness bound to lose if he does not testify? His life? Or a few hours of his time ... compared to consequences that could involve huge amounts of money or people's lives? I've long wondered why such delegation doesn't require some explicit evidence -- we have it for all contracts, but not for how we're presumed to agree with what the govt. does. Tym: And the government holds that power because we give it to the government. "Giving" is not the same as "washing our hands of it". There is some responsibility associated with it. My point is that if the government requires you to testify and you do have pertinent information, it should be in your own best interest to testify. You would be helping to uphold the legal system which protects you too. Tym - no, a proper gov't has authority over you even if you explicitly reject that authority. phil: he should suffer the consequences of not making justice a reality. bazyar: Precisely. And those who erect it, have a right to do so, because of its nature, and the contradiction in opposing the principle of civilized existence. I think there are grounds for the government to compensate subpoena'd witnesses in some manner for the inconvenience. baz: agreed, but for the reason I just stated. Tym: He will ... currently, would be thrown in jail for contempt Glenn - the problem with that is that sometimes witnesses to a crime were also participants, or may have some conflict of interest in seeing the accused punished, even if the accused is innocent. Betsy: I agree Betsy: No more than "compensating" jurors ;( What is a proper punishment for refusal to testify ? Betsy: and it couldn't be arbitrary or unreasonable. Betsy: how do you compensate a witness in a mob crime for having his life ruined? witness protection Betsy: Yes, this is the principle that men belong to themselves, just as the (flawed) principle of compensation for property taken, also reflects this. ? Wright: That would be contextual, but it carries a contempt of court injunction. Wright: not sure we've gotten thru validating the principle yet. <> Mencken came in late and would appreciate knowing how the general principle is being framed for tonight's discussion. Let's look at the purpose of a trial. It's to find the facts. If someone has the facts and is hiding them, he is obstructing justice. Ah -- jurors are a different subject altogether. I doubt anyone could convince me of the propriety of compelling jury duty. It is squarely in the same category as financing. Practically speaking, it should be unnecessary. Okay. Who still has problems with the idea of Subponeas? BetsyL yup! And he doesn't deserve justice himself. In the case of a witness' life being at risk, it may be proper to get a written statement, and have the court attempt to verify it independently (to keep that witness out of it, if possible). TomM - the police are usually pretty good about that sort of thing. ..or rather doesn't deserve the state's protection. my cousinwas on the rodney king jury and he was terrified! no help from the police at all :-( one can always find little one-off reasons to not testify, if you try. Tym - "doesn't deserve" isn't the same as "shouldn't get" Wright: no problem with subpoenas, but this notion of non-physical causation doesn't make sense to me. Does anyone know of a case where a witness' life was threatened, and he testified, and then go killed? How often does this happen? Well, I have a problem with subpoena's in civil matters. Many corporations, for instance, are always suing each other, often for what appear to be unfounded or speculative reasons. Just because they can launch action, doesn't necessarily mean they should be able to compel others to participate. You can refuse to testify on the grounds of "self-incrimination." <> Mencken reserves his reservations, having come in late, and won't outline them, since Wright asks, but notes their existence. Take the 5th. In the "World as it could be and should be" a proper government would have the right to subpoena. In the world today with illegal goverment actions subpoena is wrong and should not be allowed Brad: that would fall under "arbitrary and unreasonable". Okay.. since our time is limited here.. we should move on Brad: In civil cases, the side subpoenaing the witness should compensate the witness for his time in some manner. Goodnight, folks. Tym - here's an example. Let's say your job is to watch a steam engine. If the engine gets over a certain pressure, you have to push a button to let off steam. If you intentionally refrain from pressing that button, and the engine explodes and kills someone, you can be prosecuted for murder. Blue: In the midst of loony laws there is still an ongoing need to try actual crimes I'll be back later. Next, consider civil law. Does the same context apply here? If not, please explain the differences. Is subpoena power appropriate in these cases? Brad: Or better yet, the losing party should compensate the witness. bazyar: that's contractual in nature. BlueGreen: Well, that notion is self-defeating. Obviously, seriously flawed governments aren't going to admit so, and emasculate themselves! Tym - I disagree. If it was contractual, you could be sued for breach of contract. But rightly so, that could be a murder case. Manslaughter, at the least. Why would the valid principle involved (whatever it is) be different in criminal and civil law? The only difference in a tort is that property is affected, instead of personal conduct. bazyar: if it was in fact yr job. bazyar: Probably manslaughter, unless he did it intentionally (knowidng what the results would be). Wright: Why would civil cases be different. Damages against someones property would be damages against his life. Betsy: At the very least, a judge must approve subpoena's, to mitigate against frivolous actions. After all, remember that legal action could be used as pretense to disrupt individual lives through subpoena -- giving testimony on some sensitive matter opens up your whole life, often, to the press. bazyar: Or at the very least, negligence. TomM - exactly. Following through on an *intention* whether that means you do something, or don't do something, when you know there can be disastrous consequences, is in fact an action. bazyar: Sure. Could everyone please stick to the current topic for now? Sorry, Wright :) Betsy: I am very much in favor of a system that puts great onus on the one launching the action. Wright: I don't see the point in moving on until we've settled the groundwork. Wright: We are tying it all together as not testifying being a form of action. Wright - The same general principle applies, because force is (potentially) going to be implied. Subpoenas -- like every other gov't use of force -- must be under the tight control of objective law. Fine...go ahead Tym Betsy - right. We have "loopholes" in that law (can't compel your attorney to testify against you, for example). Betsy: I think they would have to be able to prove that without that paicular forced testimony, the case will be lost. Baz: That's another question I have :) Relevant to what BradA says is the so-called "English rule" that the losing party pays all legal costs for both sides. This would include compensating subpoena subjects. Wright: this "refraining from acting as causation" is the same sort of argument Marxists use when they say you kill a starving man by refraining from giving him food. Mencken: There is a big difference, because criminal matters imply purposeful violation of rights, and typically prison sentences. Civil matters are generally concerned with wrong action, and compensation for loss. And one can launch civil suits against almost anyone -- criminal cases can only be launched by the state, and only under very precisely specified laws and rules of evidence. TomM: That's a good point. A forced witness must have info that _only_he_ can give. Maybe he's an eyewitness, etc. Tym: In rational jurisprudence, it would come down to the fact that you 8are* responsible (whereas you are not responsible for the starving man, unless you actually are). Betsy: Right. TomM: why? bazyar: I wouldn't categorize attorney privilege as a loophole. And at least in Canada, officers of the court may not obstruct justice -- if an accused confessed to his attorney, but then lied about that on the stand, the attorney would be under compunction to speak up. Betsy - only he,. or can he be used to corroborate another witness? One could make a case that what's "criminal" ought to be a tort, to compensate for loss to those victimized. But that discards punishment, and is a separate topic. Tym: It's more than "refraining from action". It's "refraining from action" when you had an obligation to act. You have that obligation because the government is acting in your name. BradA - yes, that's true. Tym: That's contextual...but you are responsible for the conditions of your property, so if someone gets hurt there, it's your fault (even if indirectly). Lurch: If only _he_ could corroborate the other witness ... Sube: it's only acting in my name if I say it is. The only appropriate justification for subpoena in my view is that justice requires it. Period. Tym: That's the justification given for a subpoena. Tym: Well, that's the point some of us have been making. Betsy - no problem... I just wanted to make sure that his information need not be unique Betsy - I think I see where you're going, but you'd need to phrase it more carefully.. otherwise if either of two people knew the info, you couldn't make either of them testify ;) bazyar: Probably both. Tym: I think the difference in causation, is that the judicial system IS your agent -- you sanction it by living in a civilized society and participating in all its benefits, which are secured by its protection of rights. When it acts -- it acts as a delegant of YOU. That's a scenario Paul Hsieh put forward on HPO. It's a shame Paul isn't here. Brad: I can't believe people are saying that in this forum when it's something we rebut every day on Usenet :/ It's "People of the State of XXX versus Defendent". If there were 2 eyewitnesses to a murder, _both_ should testify, if necessary, compelled to Sube - yeah, exactly. Tym: What's rebutted every day on Usenet? Betsy: Yes -- Paul made this excellent point on HPO, of categorizing witnesses as material or not. Expert witnesses should probably *not* be compelled to testify. Otherwise, becoming a professional at anything could represent an unlimited liability, as everyone tried to compel you to testify. Sube - perhaps that's why the District Attorney is a political office? Tym: The government would be acting in your name under Objective law. I wouldn't know, baz. Mencken: the idea that society has a blank check on yr life because you "agreed" to live in society. Tym: You're confusing irrational gov't actions with legit. ones. Welfare state qua welfare state doesn't have a rational man's sanction, but serving actual justice is the proper role of gov't I don't know of any case in which expert witnesses are *compelled* to testify. Usually they're paid large sums of money to testify. Tym: It's not a blank check. We're confining this discussion to subpoenas which require you to testify to uphold justice, in the objective sense. phil: but they're using the same *rationale*. It doesn't fly. Tym: they're using similiar words, but they're basing theirs in a stolen concept. Subetai: you don't need to say that it's because the gvt's yr agent tho. All someone has to say then is that they never agreed to that. Tym: I have problems myself with that blank check re subpoena. Information is something that isn't causeless or free in all other areas. Why should it be, I wonder, seen that way in this one? All right.. even though we aren't through on this.. I want to throw out my final question before the hour is up The rationale is that when you delegate the right to the retaliatory use of force to the government, you don't hand it over to a ghost and wash your hands of it. You are now responsible for that delegation of authority and must act accordingly. Finally, I have a few other issues that I'm interested in. Assuming subponea power is appropriate, is it proper to have exceptions? For example, an attorney may not give testimony on what his client reveals to him, even if the client tells him that he is guilty. Is this proper? If so, why? bazyar: That is a peculiarly American institution. Most jurisdictions, to my knowledge, appoint all the officers of the court and prosecution. I personally think the practice of elected judicial officials is horrible. I think we need to differentiate the legal from the moral Mencken: that's not what I'm getting at. Subpoena is valid, but that doesn't mean that it can be used arbitrarily. Tym: So ... because you don't _feel_ like testifying, it's ok that an murdered could go free? Mecck: A supoena is not a blank check. There are -- and should be -- strict objective limits on its use. Subetai: Excellent summation of this important point. phil: *snort* obviously no. But not for the reasons proffered. Tym: But you *have* to agree to it, objectively. You can't live in a rational society and disobey just laws simply because you never agreed to them. BradA - actually, most local judges are appointed, but can be removed from office by public vote. Federal judges are on the bench for life, except in cases of felony, etc. BradA - it's another "check" upon the state. Subetai: I agree, but not because I "agreed" that the gvt. is my agent. It's simply not up to me is all. Wright: It is not the defense attorney's job to be the prosecuting attorney. But neither can the defense attorney subvert the court. The difference, would be (in this case) if the defendent testified or not. If not, the defense attorney is under no compunction to reveal the confession. Aside: MI is particularly bad, IMO. b/c all judges, appeals and Supreme COurt included, are elected Wright: "Privilege" -- between a lawyer and his client or a husband and wife, etc. are for the purpose of preventing a person from testifying against himself indirectly. BradA: An older American strain was that the watchmen could only be watched if they were elected. Thus many more elections for many more positions than in other countries. Tym: But it should be up to you, in a rational society. Just laws should have your sanction and your enthusiastic cooperation. betsy - yes, the rationale is that the accused must feel that he can speak totally freely to his attorney, so that the attorney can best defend him. Subetai: I agree with that too. But that doesn't mean that anybody's agreement is required. I would tend to go along with Baz and Betsy. Any contrary opinions? How about priest/penitent privilege? ...or psychiatrist/patient? It's probably another topic altogether, but should the state recognize that relationship? bazyar: I am convinced the most important check is in the individual sanction of society's members. The American premises are overly paranoid, and don't address the real source of abuse and decay: bad ideas. And elections are inappropriate for highly skilled appointments. Elections should be for boards or comittees of oversight, who then carefully examine the credentials of the widest candidates, and choose the best. Politicking skills should not or Doctor/Patient.. seems similar brb BradA - yes, that is the "check" of last resort. I disagree that elections are inappropriate - any political office these days requires high skill Baz: I think so. The person goes to these sorts for medical or psychiatric help.. it seems another case of "testifying against himself through others" to me Mencken: Yes, a theory, which I believe invalid, since, as I've pointed out, it is ideas that are most important, not specific officeholders. Individual officeholders have very limited power anyway, since the cooperation of many is always required, so evil or insanity can be checked regardless of elections or no. re Baz: Same idea. A person can't testify against himself involuntarily -- directly or indirectly. Wright: I disagree. The evidence is freely given. Brad: You have to differentiate between private action and public office before you cofme to the conclusion that the American system is overly paranoid. betsy - I agree with your comment - but the rule has more to do with exploiting those persons for unwilling self-incrimination betsy - a person can't be *forced* to testify against himself betsy - if a person does, it is a statement against interest or a confession We have a lawyer in the house now :) Undernet upchucks again :( Tym: You would say that a doctor should be compelled to testify about his patient? baz: Well, you can't have infinite regress. And the "professional politician" condition is not valid anyway, since a laissez-faire society would have vastly less need for ongoing legislation, and far fewer government departments to oversee, at all levels. Wright: I'm not sure on this point, but right now I'd say yes. Tym: in what way? Why a doctor, and not a lawyer? Wright: interesting point. I'll think about it. Tom: The notion of checks and balances is naive, and characteristic of the benevolence and common sense of the founders. their context was despots, and they didn't factor an intellectual/philosophic breakdown into their view of government. Brad: There is nothing they could ahve done abodut even if they knew. Checks and balances have kept us relatively free this long, even with coruption everywhere. Brad: how is it naive? mba4: Oh yes they can, if they are a businessman. Just look at how the DOJ forced Microsoft to surrender vast quantities of their documents, as the DOJ was trying to make an anti-trust case against MS. That naivity seems to be working well. ;) In one sense they did. They allowed and made provisions for popular revolution. That was one rationale for the militias and personal arms. Yeah ... how is it "naive"? No amount of constitutional wording can patch up major philosophic corrosion Brad: I'm glad the US doesn't have a parliamentary system :-P As a check on all branches of government. Tym: I wouls say that a Dr. should not be compelled -- or anyone who is spoken to under a pledge of confidentiality. Compelling their testimony requires that they break a contract and force their client to unwillingly testify against himself. Actually, the people are the best check and ballance...since no elected official would be able to get away with something a majority would be against. Betsy: had occurred to me. I'll chew on it some more. tym: Because it assumes that the source of danger is some isolated corrupt official or department somewhere, which will be held in abeyance by another branch. But what if ALL OF THEM have a philosphic breakdown? If the Congress, President and Supreme Court Justices all went to Harvard... BradA - is that a polite way of saying they didn't factor voters other than land-owner white males ? Brad: In that cased, the country is doomed anyhow...so what difference does it make? In my view, one is morally obliged to testify, but cannot legally be forced to any more than one can be compelled to feed a starving man Brad: that's tantamount to saying let's do nothing because there's no "perfect" system. Frisco: it's not the same issue. Tom: Given the state of America, I would suggest you check your premises. What do you think "freedom" is? Not being gassed in a death-camp? I would politely suggest you set your standards higher. I have to go now. I promised my son we'd go for a moonlight swim in the pool. bye betsy. later betsy bye Betsy Tym: I prefer the parliamentary system, particularly with an appointed upper house, as Canada has, though it is not too popular, I'm afraid, and may be democratized. bye Betsy Brad: My standards *are* high...note that I didnd't say freedom, but relatively free...America is still the freest nation on earth...largely due to those checks and balances you say are naive. BradA - that is to say, only voters who were educated, and could make rational choices in exercising the franchise ? . Brad: Our system is what has prevented socialism from going as far as it has in Canada Brad: Besides that, our current system has been undermined and is not the original system of checks and balances. Brad: well, I think yr dissing checks and balances is wrong. See my last comment. Tym: I don't think I implied not doing anything, because the system isn't perfect. Brad: But you are right to say that politics can not correct a corrupt philosophy. If we had a parlimentary system, nothing would have held back the Democrats over the 40 odd years they held congress BradA - I will make an admission to you about the current DOJ. I am a VMI graduate...need I say more ?! Tom: I do not think American freedom, whatever is left of it, can be attributed to c&b, but to the positive political principles upon which the country was founded. What's "DOJ"? Brad: checks and balances just make it harder for power to be unjustly usurped. Disagree? TomM: Department of Justice Brad: It is on both BradA I am ordinarily against use of force - but most of DOJ should be whipped, then shot. Brad: And one of those was checks and balances. BradA - a perverted bunc, if there ever was one... mba4: I second that emotion :) mba4: I really don't have a clue what you are asking, or referring to. COuld you ask a complete question, with self-contained referents please? bunc = bunch Wright: That is an assertion. Later.. Well, just for starters, I can talk about the bills that even the likes of George Bush vetoed Betsy - do you view this as a social contract, or something more important in terms of individual right to privacy ? or the nasty laws the Supreme Court has struck down mba4: VMI? A representative government is only as good as those who vote. That's why we have some bad laws these days, because the philosophic underpinnigs have been cut to some degree. TomM - I disagree. The real majority never goes to the polls... Tym: A proper system has separation between the legislative and judicial functions. It is an independent judiciary that is fundamental. The remainder is tinkering, not particularly significant, one way or another. The C&B system is designed to make change difficult mba4: Well, call them the "voting majority" if you like. Sometimes the misplaced pride of one branch has struck down the misplaced coercion of another. One puts the other in place because they can do it, not because it's right. That's no substitute for sound philosophy, but neither is it to be sneezed at. bye Betsy mba4: yr lagged. mba4: You have a bad lag ;) several have bad lags: mba4: get on chicago.il.us.undernet.org <> SeanS is away: Reading. [JD PING reply]: 289 secs - [Eriks PING reply]: 290 secs - [BlueGreen PING reply]: 291 secs - [mba4 PING reply]: 386 secs - [joelm2 PING reply]: 386 secs - Use Chicago net quake /\/\/\/\/\/\ Hi, ErikS: We could have used your insight earlier. well, at least it held off for an hour or so ack, he's lagged as well ;( I am not too keen on the idea of a largely unelected adminstration, for example. In the parliamentary system, the senior ministers are all elected, and directly accountable to the electorate. And the ministers are questioned in the house on a regular basis. So I think this is better, in many ways, that the American system. ... Wright: Are you going to move the channel to its own server on hypermall? Brad: originally, there was not such a large "administration". That's just one way in which the American system has been corrupted. ... Also, those who *make* the laws are required to be responsible for implementing them. I think the contrary logic is loopy. In fact, I think it leads to finger pointing, and bureacratic bloat. And if nothing else, the American system has taught the world a thing or two about gargantuan bureacracies. HUD, etc. TomM - Dept of Justice; Janet Reno & Co. We'll let you know when we have something going, Sean. mba4: You have such a dlong lag, I don't know what you are responding to ;) Brad: there are advantages and disadvantages, but the principal advantage for c&b is the executive provides the perspective of *all* the electorate rather than narrow constituencies. Pretty damn important. OK;) BradA - sorry; question was in response to your assertion founding fathers didn't factor in collapse of philosophy - you replied context was despots. Brad: and so we don't have the "Yes, Minister" syndrome quite so much ;) Anyone with serious lags, try Lowell.MA at ports 6660-6669. You guys should consider setting up root server some where, for your channel. Goodnight all, good discussion. Brad: use the bot Yeah. Do a DCC chat with HAL9001. Tom: Time for the government to take it over and regulate it. Freedom has obviously been tried and failed. :-) How could I possibly be here twice? tym, Wright - correct. bad, bad lag. I'll just "listen"... IRC log ended Fri Aug 2 23:27