YES, INSTEAD OF RIGGING ELECTIONS.

Anyone remember occupy wallstreet? That went on for a long time and no-one really cared, but what prompted a response was to setup open mock trials where people on behalf of the bankers would submit evidence and discuss the evidence, testimony and sentencing guidelines for the crimes etc. At that point all the leftist crazies were sent in to yell, disrupt and derail.. couldn't allow citizens starting to flex political power in the open, more might listen and follow their lead!

Yes, yes, yes.

In addition to needing a heavy dose of dueling to settle disputes like slander, we also need to borrow more from old Vikings laws. For example, labeling convicted criminals 'outlaws,' ie not protected by common law, so the problem usually settles itself. Wouldn't need prisons then. Or cops.

Letters of marquis? Interesting idea.

Sheriffs need to step up.

I’ll take my mark of writ and become a privateer!

If a judge is corrupt they should lose their home, at a minimum.

Here Here! Everything is better when thebullshit government is NOT involved

no private cops. the other stuff I like though.

I love how people come up with things that Murray Rothbard has written about many, many, many years ago. Check out "For a new Liberty" https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto

Private cops plus a regional militarized police force for heavy duty shit would be much better than the faggotry we deal with in places like here in California. We end up with a lot of corrupt faggots with no morals turning our population into antifa sympathizers.

Judges can be replaced by citizen convened juries.

Yes ! I loved reading that. I have been trying to get that message out for well over a year. Each county in six States citizens to petition a judge to empanel a Citizens Grand Jury. But, in his opinion given in 1992 Justice Scalia seems to be saying it is a Constitutional Right of all Citizens equal all other rights protected by the Constitution.

This is the booby trap Justice Antonin Scalia carefully laid and left behind for those murderous traitors.

Go read his beautiful clear writing, especially sections 18, 19, and 20.

18

[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It ” ‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’ In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office.

19

The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses, and deliberates in total secrecy.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the landmark case of United States v. Williams, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1992),

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/36

Citizen's arrest is a thing. Next to nobody will enforce or care about it, and usually it amounts only to detaining the bad guy until the official police arrive, but technically we all do have the authority to arrest and detain someone else. (And are subject to all the laws governing arrest and detention as well as any retarded shit a civil lawyer could voimit into the form of a lawsuit)

For judges, lifetime tenures tend to be the bigger problem. You put someone in a position of authority and they're set for life just about no matter what. If that isn't a recipe for disaster then I don't know what is. Terms and term limits makes it harder for corruption to take root in individuals, but never discount the cleverness of large corrupt organizations.

For district attorneys, I really don't now how they get their positions. If they are elected rather than appointed, then any money coming to their campaigns needs to be scrutinized heavily... Put it under light and microscope and subject it to funding laws at least as tight as those of national elections. (Which should be made far more stringent)

Communism is easy. Someone else will always decide for you and you have no choice but to accept what you get.

Freedom isn't easy. But how long does the satisfaction last from something that was easy?

I want to be on a jury!

These people we pay all this tax money to aren't really upholding their end of the bargain anymore, are they?

That signals to me that the social contract is broken, thus moot.

Take down wallstreet and big tech before they get AI to kill protesters.

FYI private money already controls it all

It's integrity. Privatizing has been a wellspring of horrendous abuses historically as well. In the absence of string and effective leadership every system, no matter how well conceived, trends down into chaos