Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Legal Lots of news about Apple vs. Samsung (and vice versa) in both the US and Europe today. In the US, judge Koh dealth two blows: one to Samsung (no retrial based on juror misconduct), the other to Apple (no permanent sales ban). In Europe, in the meantime, Samsung announced it will cease all lawsuits injunction requests against Apple... But only in Europe.
Thread beginning with comment 545865
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Jury qualifications?
by M.Onty on Wed 19th Dec 2012 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Jury qualifications?"
M.Onty
Member since:
2009-10-23


Perhaps saying that some people are too stupid to vote isn't that crazy after all. Look at the 2008 presidential election in the US - how on Earth was it possible that somebody as vapid as Sarah Palin stood a real chance of being elected to the second highest office in America? Or 2012 and Romney's comments that he believes in an apocalyptic return of Jesus to the Mount of Olives. A doomsday loonie stood a very real chance of being elected president in a country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth. When you have somebody like that in office (elected by popular vote, mind you!), is this: [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdKuLRmg8k ] really such a remote scenario?


Who gets to decide who's too stupid to vote? Who gets to decide whether the elite who make that decision have the right kind of intelligence to make that system? Institutions and rules are important, and I don't think the post you're responding to is anywhere near as libertarian as you suggested, but fundamentally even the strictest system must comes down to trusting your fellows. Healthier for society to take a risk on a significant minority of its own being plonkers and base itself on trust than to try to exclude them and base itself on distrust.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Jury qualifications?
by saso on Wed 19th Dec 2012 14:45 in reply to "RE[6]: Jury qualifications?"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Who gets to decide who's too stupid to vote?

That, of course, is largely why meritocratic systems haven't been implemented - it's hard to find a good standard for that and agree to use it ("intelligence" is no easily quantifiable metric).

I don't think the post you're responding to is anywhere near as libertarian as you suggested

He criticised regulating hazardous substance use, such as alcohol/tobacco consumption - sounds pretty hard-line libertarian from my point of view, especially when you consider that we know, unambiguously, that these substances can cause significant harm, they regularly do, and that regulation has lowered the incident rate.

but fundamentally even the strictest system must comes down to trusting your fellows. Healthier for society to take a risk on a significant minority of its own being plonkers and base itself on trust than to try to exclude them and base itself on distrust.

Fundamentally, I'm not arguing for anything else, but I am arguing in placing trust in qualified people vs. just the grey masses. This becomes especially clear when dealing with matters where tolerance for error is very small, e.g. medical doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. We do not elect them by popular vote, they earn our trust on track record. All I'm asking for is that we use the same principle in the judicial process as well (the "track record" being composed of accurate judgements, not on how many people they incarcerate - a common misconception of justice in the US).

Reply Parent Score: 2