Read The Eumenides, the first record of a jury trial in literature. Those seeking the persecution of an accused, but righteous criminal have to shut up when the people vote them innocent. Or look at some trials from Rome and throughout history.

Nullification is WHY juries were established. To protect good people, and good acts, from persecution by the letter of the law. To provide an impenetrable backstop against tyranny from the state.

The fact that it has been undermined is miserable. The whole idea that you as a juror HAVE to go along with the letter of the law is literally less than a century old. No doubt a deliberately manipulated change to our code of law and ethics.

Righteous nullification is the purpose of a jury. It has always been the purpose of a jury. It has been a jury's purpose since ancient Greece. It is why prohibition was overturned. It protects citizens from unjust laws. It protects the good work of vigilantes, but still punishes vigilantes who go beyond thier duty.

The modern concept that jurors are supposed to be nothing more than cogs in the machine of the law makes me sick.

Alright I’m going to take 10 years and live in a library while I do freelance programming to eat and I’m going to read every single classical liberal and classical liberal adjacent book by every classical liberal thinker and I’m going to become the ultimate libertarian and know exactly what flavor of statism will graciously grant us the most human rights possible (from itself)

Let’s talk free banking—an idea where private banks issue their own currencies and operate without government control or a central bank like the Fed.

Some people argue that it could create competition, keep inflation low, and avoid bailouts completely. Others think it might lead to chaos without a central authority.

With blockchain and crypto now in the mix, does free banking make more sense today? And if we ever moved away from the Fed, what would that transition look like?

Curious to hear your thoughts—could free banking be a viable path to a freer economy, or is it just wishful thinking?

As someone who has really tried to embrace the free market, I’m not sure if intellectual property laws actually stimulate growth. Are they effective at helping consumers? Do they contribute to competitivenes

In wake of the Presidential Election, I have been reading and learning more about alternative ideologies. Libertarianism - particularly Minarchy - has stood out the most to me, but I cannot fathom how monopiles are dealt with. I understand that some people say that if the market is free with no regulations, then there can only ever be a monopoly by having such a good product, but what is there to stop business owners bribing smaller businesses to sell their business to them. For example, if Company A is the largest company in a sector. Then you have many smaller companies. What is stopping the owner of Company A from bribing the owners of all the smaller companies to sell their companies to Company A? Company A could then acquire all the competitors in the market, and hence a monopoly is created.

Sorry if this is naïve, but I just cannot wrap my head around it.

Thanks!

Edit: I just realised I spelt monopolies as monopiles, but I cannot change the title

Edit 2: Thank you for your help everyone, I understand now and the example of Thames Water in London has definitely reinforced the rest of your comments about monopolies being propped up by the Government most of the time

I just posted a question a little bit ago, apologies lol, but I thought of something else. Obviously as Libertarians we believe in someone's right to protect their product and right to the free market, but there's no denying that patents in medical care are one of the things driving up costs on things like insulin. Where do we draw the line on something like this? How can we simultaneously support someone's right to their products and profits without forcing people into poverty for life saving medications. I know patents run out, but they get renewed and the cycle continues. I don't even know if I agree that patents should run out. I haven't done enough research on this yet to really have a solid opinion on it so I'm curious what you guys think.

What do you guys as libertarians think of the whole H1B situation that’s making the right basically have an Avengers civil war online right now?

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm more specifically curious in a country without a federal government, how would we like to manage national defense? I know a lot of libertarians, myself included, are pretty sick of the fed poking their fingers in all of our lives, but we also probably don't want to be invaded by Russia lol. Is it just as simple as reducing the fed down to the military and a figurehead, sorta like they have no other real power? Curious to hear your thoughts!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna145152

⬆️context for those that don’t know the story⬆️

Would libertarians be against reparations in this case? I’m against the use of eminent domain in pretty much ALL cases, but to be kicked out for a rich man’s baseball team. That just seems…an extra level of bullshit. But reparations are technically welfare

Is this Give Us Liberty book a good read? Written by Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe