My Freedoms, Your Freedoms-- How many do you truly accept?

[Secret Chief]

• To pray when and where I would like?

You can pray in your free time, in your home, your place of worship or any public space that isn't dedicate to another function.

• To marry that person, if we both agree?

As long as marriage has legal meaning and in the same way others have that right.

• To be tried by a jury of my peers for serious charges?

And if your peers are a bunch of bumbling idiots? Let the law be handled by professionals. Most countries fare well with that.

• To only be tried or punished once for an offence?

And if that one offence was against multiple targets? You should only be tried criminally once but civilly by all hurt parties, joined or individually.

You don't agree with trial by jury? The state could stitch you up if joe public wasn't involved.

 

[Heyo]

You don't agree with trial by jury? The state could stitch you up if joe public wasn't involved.

It seems an archaic anglo-saxon tradition to me. Most countries are doing well with professional and independent judges. I trust them and their expertise more than Joe Shmoe.
But I'm not exactly against jury trials, I just wouldn't formulate it into a bill of rights. The right to a fair and timely trial, yes. The question whether a fair trial has to be a jury trial is another question.

 

[Secret Chief]

It seems an archaic anglo-saxon tradition to me. Most countries are doing well with professional and independent judges. I trust them and their expertise more than Joe Shmoe.
But I'm not exactly against jury trials, I just wouldn't formulate it into a bill of rights. The right to a fair and timely trial, yes. The question whether a fair trial has to be a jury trial is another question.

Fair enough. For me the potential or temptation for the state to engineer a legal system to suit its own ends would be seriously dangerous.

 

[PureX]

Many become opportunist as a result.

There is a consistent percentage of humans among us that are selfish ***-*****. And the rest of us have to band together and create form of governance to protect ourselves from them. Which they will immediately seek to corrupt and turn to their own ends by any means available. It's that second part that we humans have not yet managed to fully grasp, and devise ways of stopping them. But anarchy certainly is not the solution.

 

[SomeRandom]

Anarchy is a fool's fantasy. Human have never been able to live in together ungoverned, and never will.

Yeah all the nomads had kings, amirite?
We were Hunter gatherers with a lose community for centuries. Don’t @ me.

 

[Heyo]

There is a consistent percentage of humans among us that are selfish ***-*****. And the rest of us have to band together and create form of governance to protect ourselves from them. Which they will immediately seek to corrupt and turn to their own ends by any means available. It's that second part that we humans have not yet managed to fully grasp, and devise ways of stopping them. But anarchy certainly is not the solution.

Excellent analysis though the conclusion you draw is questionable at least. I somehow agree as I think that we first have to solve the problem before we can have anarchy but also having anarchy makes it easier to keep the problem solved.