Misanthropic Geek Dot Net

I wouldn’t consider myself a capitalist. Sure I’ll favor it over the other major schemes since it works over large areas with less intrusion on personal liberties, but I still find it distasteful: a short-sighted economy that perpetuates itself by digesting resourses, workers, and businesses (usually their IP and accumulated trade-secret knowledge disappears in the process). Plus, businesses’ interest to stave off their own demise leads them to get consumers to forget their pivotal role in the system, thus the beast can turn self-destructive.

*sigh* Best we’ve got at the moment…

I never thought I’d hear some of my own preferred economic philosophy echoed by a lawyer… and with some substantive backing.
On TED, not surprising at all.

The slippery slope toward anarchist communism begins. :P

* Er continues in the physical world. Props to Stallman and the GPL.

Vhati here. Since this is my first post, I guess I should begin in the spirit of bloggers everywhere: uninformed demagoguery!
 
Disclaimer: I have only trivial understanding of economics and human nature. Don’t do what I say unless it is consistent, logical, and supported by outside evidence you accept.
 

Premise: Value is set when sellers collectively propose a range, and buyers collectively accept amounts from that range.
 
Premise: Buyers lack knowledge of most products they buy.
 
Since buyers are ignorant, they have to buy each competing product through trial-and-error, in an order determined by hearsay or peceived seller reputation, until satisfied with one.
 
A buyer is satisfied when a product’s performance (or one’s funding) is sufficient to preclude further shopping.
 
Manipulation of hearsay and reputation is called “marketing”.
 
Within a large enough area, a seller can profit largely via marketing to attract trial purchases. (See Pet Rock and Beanie Baby)
 
When customers have a poor grasp of performance metrics (or simply have low requirements) the primary concern is low price. When this is true of a significant majority of a population, sellers who can provide cheap, low-performance goods dominate, possibly even to an extent that high-quality goods are no longer viewed as profitable enough to sell.
  (more…)

This video is long (about 45 minutes) but worth watching, even if you think you know all there is to know about talking to the police.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en

The one thing that wasn’t ever said directly (I don’t think) was that you won’t be in the interview (interrogation) room unless the officer(s) believe there’s something to get out of you.  If you find yourself in there, the only smart thing to do is shut your mouth.  At that point, they’re trying to get enough information to prosecute, and if you have something useful to say, you’ll get your chance in court.

Every once in a while, this subject comes up when I’m talking to someone, and it always amazes me how few people are familiar with the concept.  The standard wording of this (when it’s written out, as it is in the Indiana Constitution) is “the jury shall have the right to determine [or judge] the law and the facts.”  What does that mean, though?  It means juries can find someone “not guilty.”  In the common law system on which our courts are based, there wasn’t always this right.  Back then, the verdict if someone didn’t commit the crime was frequently worded as “not proven.”  The “not guilty” wording actually came forth from juries not wanting to convict people in cases where the letter of the law would otherwise have put them in prison (or worse) for something that the jury did not believe was sufficiently criminal.  Indeed, this is the sum of the power of a trial by jury in the first place.  If all that mattered was following the letter of the law, there would be no need for juries, because judges are obviously more qualified for that task.  Juries exist to put an additional vital constraint on government power.  By ensuring a citizen the right of a trial by jury, you promise them that they have a fighting chance of not being sent to prison (or even executed) under an unjust law.

This is why it is so important for people to understand what jury nullification is.  You can argue (and be correct) that your vote in an election is very nearly meaningless.  You can write letters to your “representatives” until you bankrupt yourself with postage, and never inspire any change.  You can believe in the power of an individual citizen all you want, but the only place where that power really shines through is in the juries that most people in this country try like hell to avoid serving on.

Okay, that’s enough of me talking, go read about it:

Wikipedia Article on Jury Trials
Wikipedia Article on Jury Nullification
Another article about nullification
And another article on it
The Fully Informed Jury Association
The Indiana Constitution, Article 1. See Section 19. (if you live in another state, google is your friend.)