Search Ideas
1637 ideas match your query.:
It’s still arbitrary if it doesn’t address your objections. That’s a violation of consent and thus irrational.
By that logic, the government could arbitrarily force you to do anything the legislature approves of.
The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.
Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts are bad at persuading people to be jurors.
… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
By that ‘logic’, America never could have abolished slavery because freeing the next generation would have been ‘unfair’ to slaves. What a stupid argument.
Why does John Doe deserve your best effort? He’s a random stranger to you. Why should you care what happens to him? What has he done to deserve your effort and consideration?
This stance sounds like sacrifice/altruism.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
This sounds like sacrifice/altruism.
Shouldn’t use ‘this’ in isolation. Use a noun with it.
As of 9087189, the footer automatically hides and shows based on scrolling behavior.
Try it out and let me know if this doesn’t help.
From what I recall, it’s a scam in Germany, too. From skimming the article, ~all of its criticisms apply there as well. For example, “Organic food has a larger impact on climate because of the greater area of land required to farm it.” I don’t see why that would be different in other countries.
Food quality [in the US] is worse than third world countries.
That seems like a wild claim to make, seeing as you can safely drink tap water in the US but not in third-word countries. That tells us something about the concern for the safety of consumables in the US. I cannot imagine that food safety in the US would be anywhere near as bad as it is in third-world countries. I mean… India? Nah.
Organic food is a scam. Participants in double-blind experiments can’t tell what’s organic and what isn’t. Organic food hasn’t been found to be healthier than non-organic food. The ‘organic’ label was never even meant as a health endorsement. It’s just a way for stores to charge you more. Don’t be a sucker.
https://news.immunologic.org/p/organic-foods-are-not-healthieror
Yeah. Kidding aside, although California is gorgeous, taxes are a serious issue. Politicians have floated the idea of a future exit tax. Retroactive, I believe (!). It’s made me think twice about moving back there.
I mean ‘mustn’t’ as in ‘must not’.
I realize that. The linked Wiktionary page covers the contraction. The contraction isn’t the issue.
I think having a jury of your peers is important in criminal cases and they shouldn’t be done away with. Juries protect the accused from abuse of authority and unjust laws.
There is no contract with the country. A contract implies consent, the freedom to sign or not sign. A forced signature is null and void.
If jury duty were required for a free society to work, that would mean some people would have to be enslaved for a while to ensure freedom for everyone else. In other words, freedom would require some amount of slavery. That’s contradictory.
No, again, if you persuade enough people, you will have a diverse pool to choose from.
Nonsense. If you persuade people, make it worth their while, they will show up in droves.
By the same logic, we should force people to produce food for free, because there might be some people who can’t afford it and would starve.
Ironically, countries that nationalized food production have historically starved millions to death, while countries where food production is purely voluntary and only done in exchange for payment feed their populations best. In the latter countries, food is good, abundant, and cheap.
Yes. Juries don’t grow on trees. If you want a service, you have to pay for it.
People say the same thing when it comes to police services and the fire department. The solution to the free-rider problem is to not provide the service to people who don’t pay.
No, you want unbiased people. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t care.
Force means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This either introduces friction because they will drag their feet, or they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest, which isn’t necessarily justice. For example (emphasis added):
[A] guy said to use the opportunity to fight back against laws you don't agree with. I thought about doing that even though we were asked if we could put personal feelings aside and enforce the law and I didn't want to be the one to say I couldn't so I stayed quiet. Then I thought, “What if I'm the only juror who thinks the law is unjust”? “Do I really want to drag this out just to fight the system”? I decided to make my decision based solely on whatever would get this over with the quickest. In this particular case a guy was charged with crimes that I don't think should be crimes anyway. Since I know the majority of people in my community feel the opposite, I chose to keep my opinion to myself for fear of ridicule of people knowing my feelings.
… I'm supposed to report for jury duty tomorrow. I hope it gets cancelled or I'm not chosen but if not, I'll [do] whatever I have to to get out of there the fastest.
Force means you get people who don’t care about justice. For example (emphasis added):
Another issue that makes me a bad juror is I simply don't care. Unless someone does something to me or someone I care about, I don't care. If someone had done something to me or mine then I couldn't be a juror for that trial anyway. If John Smith steals Jane Doe's car, I don't care. Even if John Smith kills Jane Doe's [sic], I don't care. I think killing someone is wrong but if it doesn't effect [sic] me personally I don't care what punishment they get. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.