Why do you feel socialism is bad?

[josephdavid]

The end does not justify the means. I happen to know of three families that the SS (Social Services) tore apart because of someone’s accusations of sexual abuse. Such concentration of power and abuse of power is unconstitutional. SS also violates the separation of powers. They are the judge and jury, much like the feudal lords were before the Magna Carta around 1225.

Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson saw concentrated government power as a great danger to the ordinary man. The 3 documents that support this view are:

1. Virginia Declaration of Rights – 1776
2. U.S. Bill of Rights – 1791
3. Separation of Powers (Executive, Legislative and Judicial)

What is Milton Friedman’s conclusion in his book, Free to Choose?

“The two ideas of human freedom and economic freedom working together came to their greatest fruition in the United States…We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good purposes.”

“We are again recognizing the dangers of an over-governed society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society.”

References

Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (1990). Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt, Inc.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money,first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homelesson the continent their fathers conquered."

Thomas Jefferson 1802, letter to Secty of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin

If the overgown wealth of the individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritence to all equal degree.

Thomas Jefferson, 1816, letter to Joseph Milligan

By the way Friedman did believe in government intervention and had been critisized by some for that.

 

[CPA2]

In the 1960s Paul Samuelson and many other economists believed that the government could “fine-tune” the economy. Hogwash! The economy is not an engine. Consumers are not robots.

The Federal Reserve controls both the supply and the price of money. I visualize the Fed Chairman driving down the Interstate with one foot on the gas pedal and one foot on the brake. He is not concerned about staying in his lane, he just wants to avoid running into the ditch!

The beauty of the free market is that no one has to know how to run the economy. Unfortunately, the Democrats and the Republicans do not get it. Every time they open their mouths about bailouts, the value of the dollar falls.

Friends ask me how do we “cure” this financial crisis? I answer with a question, “How do you cure an alcoholic or drug addict?” The government’s drug of choice is debt. The first step towards today’s financial crisis occurred with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

This financial crisis will end when other countries no longer accept the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. When that day comes, and it will come, we will become a third world country over night. Additionally, there is a good possibility that we will also loose our sovereignty.

 

[josephdavid]

In the 1960s Paul Samuelson and many other economists believed that the government could “fine-tune” the economy. Hogwash! The economy is not an engine. Consumers are not robots.

The Federal Reserve controls both the supply and the price of money. I visualize the Fed Chairman driving down the Interstate with one foot on the gas pedal and one foot on the brake. He is not concerned about staying in his lane, he just wants to avoid running into the ditch!

The beauty of the free market is that no one has to know how to run the economy. Unfortunately, the Democrats and the Republicans do not get it. Every time they open their mouths about bailouts, the value of the dollar falls.

Friends ask me how do we “cure” this financial crisis? I answer with a question, “How do you cure an alcoholic or drug addict?” The government’s drug of choice is debt. The first step towards today’s financial crisis occurred with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

This financial crisis will end when other countries no longer accept the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. When that day comes, and it will come, we will become a third world country over night. Additionally, there is a good possibility that we will also loose our sovereignty.

Great post!

How do you feel about eliminating lobbyist being paid and special interest groups and business paying politicians up to $22K day to fund their campaigns?

In other words strenghthen and actually enforce the McCain - Feingold Act.

 

[CPA2]

Great post!

How do you feel about eliminating lobbyist being paid and special interest groups and business paying politicians up to $22K day to fund their campaigns?

In other words strenghthen and actually enforce the McCain - Feingold Act.

The reason that we have economists is to make the make the weather man look good! Economics is in a sad state. We are following the socialist economics of Keynes. Paul Samuelson is a socialist too. Even Friendman did not support the gold standard, a basic tenet of our founding fathers. Government is out of control.

We have built our house on the quicksand of socialism and without God. I am watching that house come tumbling down. All of the government men will not be able to rebuild the house of democracy.

 

[CPA2]

Even the mighty Mississippi river sometimes heads north. The dollar is no exception. There have been many dollar rallies since 1970.

My economics book in 1968, which was written by Paul Samuelson, said that we did not have to worry about debt because we owed it to ourselves. Yeah, right! The fate of the U.S. dollar is now firmly in the hands of foreigners.

My personal prediction (A prediction that I never read about) still stands: The United States will become a third world country overnight when foreigners decide that they no longer want the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the world!

I think that there are only two types of investments. There are investments in financial assets like stocks and bonds AND there are investments in real assets like metals, soybeans, etc. Both types of investments have their day. Usually when one goes up the other one goes down. Additionally, in order to be truly diversified you have to be flexible enough to be open to both types of investments.

The only clock that is broken is the U.S. dollar. The government has not given us honest money. Remember, only the government can cause inflation. I had an inkling of what was to come in 1970. Before I left Switzerland in January 1971, I converted $10 of American money into Swiss francs. I still have those Swiss francs and they are worth a lot more than $10!

I have been predicting that the dollar would go bankrupt since I graduated from college in 1970. I mentioned that to a major in economics one time and he got very angry!
It has taken a very long time to destroy the almighty dollar. The process started with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. I do not know if this recent credit crisis will precipitate the dollar’s total collapse, but we continue to move in that direction.

 

[josephdavid]

The reason that we have economists is to make the make the weather man look good! Economics is in a sad state. We are following the socialist economics of Keynes. Paul Samuelson is a socialist too. Even Friendman did not support the gold standard, a basic tenet of our founding fathers. Government is out of control.

We have built our house on the quicksand of socialism and without God. I am watching that house come tumbling down. All of the government men will not be able to rebuild the house of democracy.

Actually for the past 30 years we have been following Milton Friedman and Chicago School economics. Now there are signs of Keynes Ecomics showing through this past year but over all we still have more of the same. By the way Keynes was not a socialist.

I agree Government is out of control. This is why I support Ron Paul’s notion to get out of Iraq and over all out of Afghanistan. We can not aford it. It is dragging down our economy with no economic or political return. Not saying that this is the solve-all but part of the problem.

The Fed is not regulated and in fact banks are lobbying hard to stop the Ron Paul Bill of auditing the Fed to be stopped.

 

[josephdavid]

To say the govenrment is part of the problem, is right on. They are part of the problem. They have not enforced regulation to keep the banks in check. They have not kept the American worker in mind with these unfair trade pacts. They have ruined the dollar by economic and international policies that have caused us to borrow more and get us in a prolonged war that will cost us about a $1 Trillion before we got out.

Speaking of crazy and wrong. Prior to this year the government kept the Iraq and Afghannistan Wars on “seperate books” so when the news reported budget deficit declines in certain years it was actually leaving out the Wars. Now let you and I try to get away with that in the real world!

However, to say we throw out government and all the rules is dangerous. Even Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, Paine, Adams, all Founding Fathers, agreed you have to have a nation of laws and taxation.

 

[tjm190]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/05/business/tax.chart.gif

It doesn’t matter how much they benefited from the tax cuts- even taking those into account, the top 1% pays more than the bottom 95%.

 

[tjm190]

That’s funny because billionaires such as Leona Helmsley have said: “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”
why should the little poor people such as myself and others have to pay taxes, when billionaires such as Leona Helmsley say that they do not pay any taxes? And then why do these billionaires go around begging for government handouts or bailouts. Of course they call them loans, but when they are paid back, in many cases they are paid back by warrants wrth much less or in dollars which are worth much less than their original value.

It doesn’t matter what she said- those billionaires still pay more than the rest of us combined.

They government bailed out COMPANIES not people- they employed low income people as well as high income people. Those companies were also essential to every business that would want a loan in the near future.

 

[tjm190]

It is not true that all of this money which was “loaned out” will be paid back.
money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/companies/chrysler_loans/
Further banks supposedly giving back their bailout money are repurchasing their warrants for less than their market value.
See:
business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/bank_bailout_loans_become_partial_subsidies.php

We’ve been talking about Wall Street firms aka banks- THEY are expected to pay their loans back.

In the article you posted, it is made clear that the treasury department is telling the banks what to pay. They, through market analysis, believe the price is in line with the market. The author disagrees.
Also, it mentions they only looked at ‘11 small banks’- this does not help your case against bug banks.

 

[CPA2]

To say the govenrment is part of the problem, is right on. They are part of the problem. They have not enforced regulation to keep the banks in check. They have not kept the American worker in mind with these unfair trade pacts. They have ruined the dollar by economic and international policies that have caused us to borrow more and get us in a prolonged war that will cost us about a $1 Trillion before we got out.

Speaking of crazy and wrong. Prior to this year the government kept the Iraq and Afghannistan Wars on “seperate books” so when the news reported budget deficit declines in certain years it was actually leaving out the Wars. Now let you and I try to get away with that in the real world!

However, to say we throw out government and all the rules is dangerous. Even Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, Paine, Adams, all Founding Fathers, agreed you have to have a nation of laws and taxation.

We can throw out 80% of government. We can throw out all of the regulatory agencies, for example. Most of what we call government is just socialism. Even our money is government money, not real money. The only legitimate function of governemt is to be an umpire.

When the baby is Rosemary’s baby, I believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Let’s get back to the original Bill of Rights.

 

[josephdavid]

We can throw out 80% of government. We can throw out all of the regulatory agencies, for example. Most of what we call government is just socialism. Even our money is government money, not real money. The only legitimate function of governemt is to be an umpire.

When the baby is Rosemary’s baby, I believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Let’s get back to the original Bill of Rights.

I am not sure what you mean by socialism and government regulation. Give us an example of government regulation that is socialism?

How can you be an umpire if there are no rules for which to referee?

 

[CPA2]

These are some of my favorite quotes from Ludwig von Mises. He is known as the head of the “Austrian school” of economics. He was a Professor of Economics at the University of Vienna from 1934 to 1940. I compiled these quotes over the years. I got some of the quotes over the Internet.

“The notion that it is possible to pursue a credit expansion without making stock prices rise and fixed investment expand is absurd.”

“Credit expansion is the governments’ foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.”

“Firmly committed to the principles of interventionism, governments try to check the undesired result of their interference by reporting to those measures which are nowadays called full-employment: unemployment doles, arbitration of labor disputes, public works by means of lavish public spending, inflation, and credit expansion. All these remedies are worse than the evil they are designed to remove.”

“It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.”

“The boom is called good business, prosperity, and upswing. Its unavoidable aftermath, the readjustment of conditions to the real data of the market, is called crisis, slump, bad business, depression”

“The boom squanders through malinvestment scarce factors of production and reduces the stock available through overconsumption; its alleged blessings are paid for by impoverishment.”

“The boom produces impoverishment. But still more disastrous are its moral ravages. It makes people despondent and dispirited. The more optimistic they were under the illusory prosperity of the boom, the greater is their despair and their feeling of frustration. The individual is always ready to ascribe his good luck to his own efficiency and to take it as a well-deserved reward for his talent, application, and probity. But reverses of fortune he always charges to other people, and most of all to the absurdity of social and political institutions. He does not blame the authorities for having fostered the boom. He reviles them for the inevitable collapse. In the opinion of the public, more inflation and more credit expansion are the only remedy against the evils which inflation and credit expansion have brought about.”

“There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

“The whole system is the acme of the short-run principle.”

“The credit expansion boom is built on the sands of banknotes and deposits. It must collapse.”

It looks like the Economist magazine rediscovered Ludwig von Mises. Here is another one of his quotes.

“If one wants to avoid the recurrence of periods of economic depression, one must start by preventing the emergence of artificial booms. One must prevent the governments from embarking upon a policy of cheap interest rates, deficit spending, and borrowing from the commercial banks. This is, of course, a very difficult task. Governments are in this regard very obstinate. They long for the popularity that booming business conditions seldom fail to win for the party in power. The unavoidable crash, they think, will appear only later; then the other party will be in power and will have to account to the voters for the evils which their predecessors have sown.”

 

[josephdavid]

It doesn’t matter what she said- those billionaires still pay more than the rest of us combined.

They government bailed out COMPANIES not people- they employed low income people as well as high income people. Those companies were also essential to every business that would want a loan in the near future.

The government IS the people or at least it should be as the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and the Government to be, For the People by the People.

 

[CPA2]

I am not sure what you mean by socialism and government regulation. Give us an example of government regulation that is socialism?

How can you be an umpire if there are no rules for which to referee?

Perfection is the enemy of good enough. There will always be a need for government. The real question is what is the function of government? What is our objective, equality of outcome or equal opportunity? Do you want the assumptions of Adam Smith and the founding fathers, or the assumptions of Marx, Paul Samuelson and the socialists?

Let us face it. Rules and laws do not work. Even the SEC agrees with me on that point.

My favorite law is the law of unintended consequences. I believe in plan A, B, C, etc. I always had a planed route when I was an outside salesman, but I was quick to change when I had to.

I, like many other entrepreneurs, hate stupidity. I have no patience for stupidity in organizations. We entrepreneurs are movers and shakers. Rules and laws are guides in the planning process. When our rules do not lead to our goals, we are quick to abandon the rules. I detest organizations that worship rules and laws. (It’s the law!) These organizations have no common sense. These organizations lose my respect.

I purposely differentiate between people and organizations. It is my belief that everyone has common sense. Not everyone’s elevator goes to the top floor. I work with some of these people, and I admire them because they give 100%. Public universities are another matter. I classify these institutions of higher learning as stupid (ineffective and inefficient) organizations. It is my belief that no one can improve a stupid organization if there is no incentive for improvement. There is nothing more stupid than enforcing rules and laws that are unworkable.

Language is imprecise. Therefore, many laws are an effort to limit and restrict more than one variable. Extremely long sentences are the end-result! Tax Court judges also have to read the incomprehensible. Research shows that the Tax Court could not discern the intent of Congress in one-third of the cases reaching them. The Tax Court judges did not rewrite the law, however, even when the statues were unworkable. Their attitude was that the statue always comes first (Kirkpatrick and Pollard).

I only know of ten laws that are written in stone, the Ten Commandments. However, we may have as many as 200,000 laws to interpret the Ten Commandments. I would say that the planning process is out of control. When the baby is Rosemary’s baby, I am in favor of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[CPA2]

The government IS the people or at least it should be as the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and the Government to be, For the People by the People.

IF we are the government, then we have the right to do what we want. Let us take a poll and agree to paint the White House black. If we are the government, then we can do that. Let’s see how far we get.

This is no longer the government of the people. It is the government of the government and for special interests. The same was true of the government in England before the Magna Carta. King John said that his mouth was the law! What is different than the forfeiture laws, the Supreme Court and regulatory agencies?

An unjust law is no law at all. It is not worth the paper it is written on.

The first question that I would have is, “Is this man-made law valid?” If the law violates divine law or natural law, the man-made law is invalid. No one needs to obey an invalid law; in fact, you have a moral obligation to oppose it. That is why jury members have the right to judge the law, not just the facts. By a process called jury nullification jury members can refuse to uphold an unjust law.

Second, we never get everything that we want when we elect a candidate, even if we voted for him. When you go to the grocery store you vote with your dollars and you get exactly what you want.

The great evil of our time is the divorce of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is the conscience of the Constitution. However, today the Constitution stands alone and judges have become the conscience of the Constitution. That is illegal!

 

[josephdavid]

@CPA2
Ok great, but can you cite some laws, rules, regulations whether federally or by state and local, that is considered socialism?

 

[josephdavid]

IF we are the government, then we have the right to do what we want. Let us take a poll and agree to paint the White House black. If we are the government, then we can do that. Let’s see how far we get.

This is no longer the government of the people. It is the government of the government and for special interests. The same was true of the government in England before the Magna Carta. King John said that his mouth was the law! What is different than the forfeiture laws, the Supreme Court and regulatory agencies?

An unjust law is no law at all. It is not worth the paper it is written on.

The first question that I would have is, “Is this man-made law valid?” If the law violates divine law or natural law, the man-made law is invalid. No one needs to obey an invalid law; in fact, you have a moral obligation to oppose it. That is why jury members have the right to judge the law, not just the facts. By a process called jury nullification jury members can refuse to uphold an unjust law.

Second, we never get everything that we want when we elect a candidate, even if we voted for him. When you go to the grocery store you vote with your dollars and you get exactly what you want.

The great evil of our time is the divorce of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is the conscience of the Constitution. However, today the Constitution stands alone and judges have become the conscience of the Constitution. That is illegal!

One question which I had asked you before: Would it help to make alws to abolish special interests lobbying congress and also donating to the politicians campaigns?

How are we divorcing from the Bill of Rights? Can you give us an example?

Also when I say By the People For the People. The Government is to serve the nation not special interests and big business. Even our Catechism says laws by the State are to be help and benifit all not just a few.

 

[CPA2]

@CPA2
Ok great, but can you cite some laws, rules, regulations whether federally or by state and local, that is considered socialism?

Yes, I can. Here is my case brief on BABBIT v. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREATER OREGON

Case Brief

BABBIT v. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREATER OREGON, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)

Plaintiff and Defendant

The plaintiff is Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon. The defendant is Babbit.

Facts

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 gives the Secretary of the Interior the power to designate species that he considers threatened or endangered. The Secretary of the Interior, Babbit, interpreted the word “harm” to include “indirectly injuring endangered animals through habitat modification and degradation.” The plaintiff alleged that the Secretary harmed them economically by improperly defining the word “harm” in the Endangered Species Act.

Lower Courts

The Court of Appeals ruled the Babbit’s regulation was invalid. The Secretary of the Interior, Babbit, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Issue Appealed

Did the Secretary exceed his authority under the Act by promulgating the regulation that defines the statue’s prohibition on takings to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife?”

Who Wins

The Secretary of the Interior, Babbit, wins.

Reasoning

1. An ordinary understanding of the word “harm” supports Babbit’s interpretation as reasonable.
2. The Act contained sweeping changes against the taking of endangered species that supported the Secretary’s decision to extend protection against activities that cause harm.
3. Congress authorized the Secretary to prohibit indirect as well as indirect takings.

Case Questions

1. How did the Secretary’s regulation economically affect the landowners, companies, and families of employees? The Secretary’s regulation prohibited the habitat modification and degradation of the red-cockaded woodpecker and the northern spotted owl. The landowners, companies, and families of employees in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast rely on the forest for their livelihood. These people could not harvest the forest to earn a living. The Secretary’s regulation prevented the cutting of a tree, or the draining of a pond.
2. What is the issue that the Supreme Court is deciding in this case? The Supreme Court is deciding if the Secretary exceeded his authority under the Act by defining the word “harm” to include habitat modification and degradation.
3. What argument do the respondents make that the Secretary exceeded his authority? The definition of harm is the direct application of force. The respondents argue that activities that cause minimal or unforeseen harm do not violate the Act’s definition of the word “harm.”
4. What arguments does the Supreme Court use in deciding that the Secretary’s regulation is valid? First, the Court of Appeals erred in asserting that only direct action can lead to “harm.” The dictionary does not support this definition of “harm.” Unless the statutory term “harm” includes indirect as well as direct injuries, the word “harm” has no meaning. The Secretary’s definition of the word “harm” is reasonable. Second, a “knowing” action is enough to violate the act. Third, Congress used the word “harm” to serve a particular function in ESA. Congress had in mind foreseeable rather than just accidental effects on endangered species.

 

[CPA2]

Abstract

The role of juries is shrinking in the United States. This trend is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. Juries have the right to evaluate both the facts and the law in a court case. The author supports a Constitutional Amendment that would have the courts inform jurors of their rights.

Jury Power

What is the proper role of a jury? Do we want to limit the role of juries? Do we want our justice system run by the experts, lawyers and judges? Society needs to decide.

The author supports the concept of jury power. This view holds that the trial jury has more power than Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court. “This is because it (the trial jury) has the final veto power over all ‘acts of the legislature’ that may come to be called ‘laws’ (Jurors’ Handbook, 2002). The author supports a constitutional amendment that would have the court inform jurors of their rights. Jurors’ rights would not only include an assessment of the facts, but an evaluation of the law itself.

Trial by jury has a long lineage. The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees trial by jury no less than three times (Conrad, 1999). Article III Section 2 guarantees citizens accused of a crime a trial by jury. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that the trial will take place in the same district that the crime was committed. The Founding Fathers also guarantee trial by jury in civil cases where more than $20 is involved (Conrad, 1999).

Jurors have the right to judge both the facts and the law. The Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the Case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford in 1794. Justice John Jay instructed the jury: “On questions of fact, it is the province of the jury; on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes the reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy (Conrad, 1999).”

Jurors have the power to nullify bad laws. “Amendment VII of the Constitution guarantees that jury verdicts which nullify laws cannot be reviewed and the Supreme Court has affirmed this (Silveira, 2001).” A jury acquittal is final. Jurors are free to vote their conscience because they cannot be prosecuted for their verdict.

“Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a person of a crime, even though it’s clear he committed the crime, because the jurors feel there are extenuating circumstances, or because they feel the law is unjust, or because the sentence will be too harsh, or because they feel the law is applied unfairly (Silveira, 2001).” Jury nullification does not change the law. Jurors just refuse to apply the law in a particular case.

The ultimate purpose of jury nullification is to reign in the abusive power of the government. Judge Thomas Wiseman said, “Congress is not yet an infallible body incapable of passing tyrannical laws (Conrad, 1999).” Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson believed that the role of government is an umpire, not a participant (Friedman, 1990).

Jury nullification would be particularly useful in administrative law where a government agency charges an individual with a crime. The IRS is an example of a government agency that is both judge and jury. If the IRS charges a citizen with tax fraud, the author thinks that a citizen should have the right to request a trail by jury. Trial by jury would have a sobering effect on IRS tactics, as reported in recent years.

There is a struggle between those who believe in juror activism and those who believe in judicial activism. The government does not like its laws vetoed by a jury. The courts seek to limit the power of juries in various ways. The jury selection process can be engineered to disqualify people who understand what jury nullification is all about. “A couple of especially hard questions for those who understand and appreciate the political role of the jury are “Will you follow the law as given, even if you disagree with it?’ and/or ‘Have you read any material on the topic of jury nullification (Fully Informed Jury Association, 2002)?’”

Another tactic is to limit the number of trials with juries. Only 4.3 per cent of federal criminal charges are now ending in jury verdicts, down from 10.4 percent in 1988. Federal civil cases resolved by juries dropped from 5.4 percent in 1962 to 1.5 percent in 2000 (Glaberson, 2001).

Many believe that cultivating jury nullification is a mistake. “Unlike legislators or electors, jurors have no opportunity to investigate or research the merits of legislation (King, 1999). “Some legal scholars, judges and business lawyers say that reining in juries is a necessity in an overloaded legal system. Others argue that juries must be controlled to limit excesses, and curb prejudices like hostility to big corporations (Galberson, 2001).”

Those who seek salvation by law from a strong government may not be aware of the law of unintended consequences. Milton Friedman (1990), winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, said it best. “An individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is ‘led by an invisible hand to promote’ private interests, ‘which was no part of his intention.’”

The author does not want our judicial system run by lawyers and judges, and he does not want to limit the role of juries. The author believes that the eroding role of juries is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. To remedy the eroding role of juries, the author supports a constitutional amendment to inform all jurors of their Constitutional right to nullify the law.