Behind the Lines: Israeli Libertarian

Daniel Danon Hates Guns and Freedom

2009-07-31T04:14:00.002+03:00

As of now, MK Daniel Danon is sponsoring a bill to ban everybody aged under 21 from owning guns and everybody under 16 from entering public ranges. On his site, he writes: "Today, even 4-year-olds can enter public ranges for "fun days" or other activities. This bill will stop this."

This is of course scaremongering of the most blatant kind - obviously it is meant to conjure up an image of four-year-olds running around with guns. This is of course not goes on at public ranges in ISrael or anywhere. It is true that young children can shoot at ranges since an early age in Israel - but, like in other countries, they do so under the safe supervision of adults.

I have written MK Danon a letter [reproduced below]. Those of you wishing to write him a letter can do so at ddanon@knesset.gov.il.

Dear MK Danon!

I have recently become informed that you have sponsored a bill that limits the age at which a person can receive a firearms license (under your proposal, a young citizen can not receive a firearms license until they are 21 years old, and no person younger than 16 years old can attend a public range and shoot there for training). As a Likud voter and a citizen of Israel, I am extremely concerned about this bill, for several reasons:

1.The bill discriminates against women. While it is true that men in Israel complete mandatory service by 21, a woman will have completed her service by the age of 20, and yet entirely unable to carry a weapon in self-defense for one more year. Considering hundreds of women in Israel are assaulted – sexually or otherwise – every year, this is a serious concern.

2.Citizens in Israel can obtain a license for a car – typically a far more dangerous contraption than a firearm – at the age of 18 and even earlier. A car can be the cause of a lethal accident even if the driver does everything right, whereas lethal accidents with firearms are nearly impossible unless safety rules are broken. Yet for some reason you wish to deny mature citizens of Israel, people who are old enough to serve the country in war and vote for your party, the means of self-defense. Do you genuinely believe that an Orthodox-Jewish woman or an Arab-ISraeli man aged 18 should not be able to defend themselves or to participate in the shooting sports?

3.Finally, and most prominently, I am concerned that your bill seeks to deny access to public ranges to young boys and girls aged below the age of 16. Nobody, of course , favors four-year-olds running around with lethal weapons, unsupervised – but this is not what this is about. At shooting ranges in Israel, all shooters are observed at all times by instructors, and young children come to shoot with their parents. Anybody who can observe the basic rules of gun safety (which consists of treating all guns as if they were loaded, keeping one's finger off the trigger unless one intends to fire the gun, and not shooting anything one doesn't intend to destroy, as well as being aware of the nature of one's target) can safely shoot at a range. These rules are simple and even a ten-year-old can easily master them.

Nor is the notion of young children participating in the shooting sports so unacceptable. Many experts believe that introducting young children to the shooting sports early not only imparts useful skills that could then be applied in the young man's future military service, sports career, or individual sefl-defense, but also improves various mental and physical faculties – individual responsibility one one hand and hand-eye coordination on the other. Obviously, like all other sports, shooting sports are healthy and good for our children – in the United States and Europe, there are even youth teams that compete in these sports, at early school ages. As for hunting, abroad that often invovles participants as young as nine years old (obviously, operating with adult supervision), using shotguns or rifles.

Given these facts, it makes little sense to further restrict and discourage people who seek to legally own firearms in Israel, especially given the dysmal shape of our Olympic shooting teams and the security situation in this country. As a member of the Likud Party, the notion of further reducing the ability of Israel's citizens to defend their homes and country from terrorism and crime should be especially disturbing to you.

I would like to conclude my letter by pointing out that while I have voted for your party in the last election, your actions on this bill will impact my decision regarding whether I vote for it in the next election.

Sincerely yours,
Boris Karpa,
Teudat-Zehut [number omitted]

Dromi is Acquitted!

2009-07-15T16:48:00.002+03:00

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3746822,00.html

The Beersheba District Court on Wednesday decided by a majority vote to acquit southern farmer Shai Dromi of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court did convict him of weapon offenses.

Here are my thoughts [which have also been reposted on the Daily Capitalist site]

1.This is very remininscent of the Boernie Goetz case in America, where a man was convicted of firearms charges because the prosecutor could not get him on the manslaughter charge due to self-defense claims. Let me remind Western Readers - Israeli courts are not required to convict people even if they're guilty under the facts. One doubts why they did it in this case.

2.The judge in Israel is not bound to convict every criminal who is technically guilty. The judges here decided to convict Shai Dromi on a 'firearms charge' in relation to a .22LR rifle. These are not designed as weapons (though of course, as the case proved, one can technically kill with them). These are designed as sporting weapons, and in Europe they're often sold without licenses (note I am deliberately avoiding discussion of the US policy). I think it was petty to convict for possession under the circum

3.I realize that adoption of US-like firearms laws is currently not a possibility in Israel, but I think this is proof should relax them, if even slightly. Under the current laws, most citizens of Israel cannot own weapons at all:
http://server103.http.co.il/~hamitvac/files/wordocs/tavchinim.pdf

Perhaps it would be best to except some types of weapons from the licensing requirements, or at least make it easy to purchase one. Specifically, rifles and shotguns are classic home defense weapons and they cannot really be comfortably carried or used by criminals (in the US, the gun-ownership utopia/dystopia, rifle murders constitute about 3% of total murders, even though dozens of millions of people have them). Such a limited reform would allow men like Dromi to defend themselves.

Netanyahu's New Governmeent - Questions

2009-04-12T22:47:00.005+03:00

On this blog, I sometimes post articles I don't quite agree with. This is one from Daniel Doron, the founder of ISCEP. My comments about the article are shown below, in bold. For full disclosure - I voted for Likud.

Big government? Yes, but there's a reason

Apr. 11, 2009
DANIEL DORON , THE JERUSALEM POST

Is Binyamin Netanyahu's government too big? Yes. Is that good? No. So why would Netanyahu, an experienced politician, create such an unwieldy beast? He and his government face two historic challenges: an economic crisis that has yet to fully unfold, and a nuclear threat from Iran.

How big is this crisis? We do not know. World-class economists had disagreed about how long it is going to be, what are its causes, and whether it is a crisis at all. Many say it'll be over by the end of this year. Similarly, we are not certain that Iran is such a huge crisis at all. It's not certain that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it's not certain it's capable of having them, it's not certain that they plan to use them on us.

We all want a government that can face these challenges. Could Netanyahu's critics suggest a better alternative to the coalition he managed to form, considering the sanctimonious refusal by Kadima to join a wider coalition?

No, I cannot suggest a better alternative. But that does not make Netanyahu beyond criticism. We must continue to criticize all parties when they deserve it, to improve Israel's political climate to the point a truly free society is possible and feasible.

Netanyahu would probably prefer a more compact government. No one has suffered more from coalititis - the disease afflicting our body politics - than he. When previously prime minister, he had to devote most of his time to political survival, fending off his many adversaries from the Left and Right. They so exhausted him that he was unable to carry out most of the excellent reforms he had planned.

So he sacrificed ideas and decency for political purposes. Thank you for making this clear.

As finance minister, Netanyahu proved exceptionally able to push through crucial reforms when given a chance. When he enjoyed the backing of prime minister Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu exhibited not only an ability to frame and execute major reforms, but also a willingness - so rare among politicians - to pay a heavy political price to get them enacted. He succeeded in saving the country from an Argentina-like collapse, and in transforming 20 years of no growth and deep recession into five years of spectacular growth. But he paid for his boldness and determination by losing an election.

SO YES, Netanyahu's first task was to establish a (relatively) stable government that will allow him to handle the challenges facing the country with a modicum of a national consensus. This required as big and as varied a coalition as he could get. In politics, especially in our politics, there is no free lunch, so Netanyahu had to pay with a large and costly government. However, should Netanyahu - as he probably intends - manage to use this wide coalition to push through even some of the reforms he spoke about, especially in land use and education, the savings from these reforms, the bureaucratic waste they will cut and the efficiency they will generate will pay in spades for the additional costs of his big government.

So what some condemn as wastefulness may turn out to be a wise investment in facilitating basic reforms that have enormous potential returns.

IF YOU WANT to appreciate how intense is the personal and ideological animus that certain critics in politics, but especially in the media, have toward Netanyahu precisely because he is not part the cabal that dominates both our politics and our economy, precisely because his reforms are the only real challenge to the corrupt system of spoils that enrich them - just examine the maelstrom of criticism that greeted his appointment of Yuval Steinitz as finance minister.

True, it may have been better had Netanyahu found an accomplished economist to serve as finance minister. But a good finance minister needs qualities even more rare than a knowledge of economics (which Steinitz, a very capable man, can acquire in a reasonable time). Steinitz certainly has integrity, a keen intelligence, a good temper, a knack for teamwork and loyalty to his mentor, Netanyahu. Above all, in contrast to almost any economically savvy candidate for the job, and certainly any candidate with former economic or business experience, the very fact that Steinitz does not come from such a background may prove a refreshing guarantee that he is neither tainted by nor beholden to any of the vested interests that dominate the economy.

I invite our readers to list those they consider qualified and experienced candidates for finance minister, and to find one who would not come loaded with baggage and representing vested interests. A clean slate can have immense advantages.

Two word: Omer Moav.

MOREOVER, UNTIL he learns the ropes Steinitz will be helped by a prime minister who, unlike most politicians, has an excellent understanding of economics, and of how vital a healthy economy is for the survival of a country. Netanyahu also knows what must be done to assure that the economy gets well.

Steinitz will also be helped by an excellent professional team, the "treasury boys" as the enemies of reform often refer to them. Last, but certainly not least, he will enjoy the advice and backing of our exceptional Bank of Israel governor, Stanley Fischer, a top-notch economist of international fame. Steinitz will not be facing the crisis alone.

Yes, it would be great if circumstances had allowed Netanyahu to form a smaller, more efficient government based on a stronger Likud. But under the circumstances, he should be congratulated for his determination and skill in forming a government that may yet do great things, especially in economic reform.

This is the main question that I would like to ask Mr. Doron. What is this 'reform' that we're talking about? We already understand that Netanyahu's economic platform as expressed before the elections will not be implemented.

We already realize Mr. Netanyahu is not a principled free marketeer in the vein of Paul Broun, Ron Paul, or even Reagan or Thatcher. So what is this reform so precious and wonderful that we must all not just rally behind Bibi but defend him from all criticism?

The Man Speaks

2009-01-06T16:07:00.001+02:00

Uncomfortably Close

2009-01-05T16:40:00.001+02:00

So I was coming home from college today and saw my entire street blocked off – police, firefighters, Army troops, the works. Naturally, I assumed that a rocket fell on my street and asked one of the soldiers where it hit – and was told it hit a 'kindergarten', with the guy pointing in the vague direction of my house. Nobody was injured, he said.

There is a kindergarten literally in front of my house. I assumed immediately this was the one hit and started making my way past the cops, spectators, and TV crews, while frenziedly calling all the house phones, trying to get to my father – I realized he wasn't directly injured, but I feared he might have had heart problems due to the events.

By the time I got closer to the end of the street Mom reached Dad's spare cell and it turned out he had slept right through the whole thing – and the rocket hit a different kindergarten a block away. It was empty – all of them are – so there were only ten people in psychological shock.

Israel's President speaks

2009-01-05T09:25:00.001+02:00

Yesterday, we saw our soldiers with their heavy bags, carrying on their backs not just their gear, but the entire history of our people. We saw the commanders, with their night vision binoculars, looking forward, towards the future.

We are not a people who desires war. We are not an aggressive people. We do not aim to destroy the Arabs, but to bring peace. We say that the government was in grave doubt about this decision – it was because they feared doing an injustice. It is very important enough that the cause of our war be just.

Even today the government maintains a moderate tongue. We do not wish to destroy Gaza or even destroy Hamas. We only want the terror to end. When I look at the children of the Palestinians, my heart bleeds. They are being used as weapons, and we have no desire to hurt them or any other innocents. I am proud of the soldiers and commanders who have planned this operation. Operation Cast Lead is a justified and just action, aimed at hurting the Hamas, improving the Army's capacity for deterrence and achieving a long-term stable situation in Gaza and the surrounding area.

Some say that our reaction is disproportional. I ask: what is proportional? Should we only stop part of the rockets? The proper balance is between avoiding harm to innocents and making sure that the extremist maniacs realize that they have no chance, and ensuring they pay a heavy price for their actions.

We can't know how long the operation will go on. Nothing in life is perfect, and nothing is final. We are a small, democratic, fair and peaceloving nation. We feel this war is necessary and just. If we win it, then peace shall be our victory.

Shimon Peres, President of Israel, talking to schoolchildren in the South of Israel

My thoughts:

1. It seems to me that he's not really addressing the schoolkids, he's addressing the media present.
2. It also seems that he is already preparing the public for the idea that the Army will probably start short of ending the rocket fire completely. That is.... words cannot express my feeling regarding how pathetic this is. But that said, Peres is a Kadima member. Fail is their profession.
3. As this progresses, I am getting more and more the feeling that Israel will quit on this before getting a real achievement, and go home, probably because of international pressure. Hamas will declare victory.
4. The above is an optimist prediction. The pessimist prediction is that Hamas does something 'successful' – kidnaps another soldier, blows up an APC full of troops, or maybe hits a schoolbus with their rockets, and THEN Israel will leave. This will essentially be a Hamas victory, no matter what casualties we inflict on them. It'll be like the Tet Offensive, reproduced on a miniature, retarded Middle-Eastern Scale.

In the meanwhile, in America

2008-08-01T15:30:00.000+03:00

Ayn Rand/Nathaniel Branden

2008-07-18T19:09:00.000+03:00

To My American Readers - Thank You All

2008-07-04T11:35:00.000+03:00

I make it a personal habit to congratulate my American correspondents, and people on forums I frequent, on the 4th of July. Usually, I try to find something important to say to them, but this year, I'm flat out. Maybe I'm just too cynical after some of the recent events, but I don't have anything to say outside of the obvious:

What happened in 1776 was not just important for Americans. It was an event that shook the world – because it proved that the idea of freedom isn't just yet another utopia. That freedom can work. That freedom is an option.

The tyrants can take over the world, and they can make us all slaves. But they cannot change the past. The very fact that at one point in the past, men risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to declare liberty, and then maintained this liberty for generations, is a blow to tyrannies of all kinds. And they know it. Men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams are dangerous to them, even two centuries later.

The message of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams is uniquely American – but it is also eternal. It reminds us overseas – it reminds all people in the world – that no matter what injustice we are subjected to, we are all, ultimately, free. We deserve to be free. We are no worms, crawling under the throne of some king or almighty leader, we are human beings, with human dignity and freedom inherent to our very nature. That is the message of America.

America is the land of endless opportunity – because America is the land of freedom.

America is the land of limitless wealth – because America is the land of freedom.

America is the land of almost unstoppable military might – because America is the land of freedom.

Never has this power, or this wealth, been America's share because it has some special resources, or minerals, or because its people have the right diet. Forever has America's message been: “Do what we do, accept our message of freedom, and you will be wealthy and powerful and happy, just like us.”

America's message is one that America can share with the world – freely – and does share, freely, without losing her wealth, or its power. Because freedom is not hoarded, nor is it rationed.

The message of freedom is universal. That message, above all else, is America's gift to the world.

Thank you, America.

Because They're That Awesome.

2008-07-03T10:23:00.000+03:00

Regarding the terrorist incident

2008-07-03T09:52:00.000+03:00

Police said the incident was definitely terrorism, emphasizing that the perpetrator, Jabr Duwait, a 32-year-old father of two from East Jerusalem, was carrying an Israeli identity card.[4] He was being hired by a local construction firm for the Jerusalem Light Rail.

From Comrade Wiki, of course.

Previously it was said that one of the policemen involved was wounded by gunfire. This appears, as of now, not to be true.

At least 4 killed, 36 hurt in J'lem bulldozer terror attack

2008-07-02T13:05:00.000+03:00

From the Jerusalem Post

At least 4 killed, 36 hurt in J'lem bulldozer terror attack
Jul. 2, 2008
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

At least four people were killed and 36 were wounded - two seriously, four moderately and 30 lightly - on Wednesday afternoon when a bulldozer driver went on a rampage in downtown Jerusalem.

Police said that the driver plowed his vehicle into two public buses, toppling them over, and slammed into several cars.

The driver was shot dead by an elite policeman, police said, adding that the incident was a terror attack. Police emphasized that the terrorist was carrying an Israeli identity card and was a resident of east Jerusalem.

Witnesses said the driver was killed after a brief struggle with two policemen.

One of the elite policeman was lightly wounded, apprently by gunfire, indicating that the terrorist was armed.

The attack, on the junction of Jaffa and Sha'arie Yisreal streets, set off a panic in the area. Dozens of people ran through the streets to flee the scene of the attack and a car was still stuck under the bulldozer. Police said it was unclear how many people were in the trapped vehicle.

The bulldozer was apprently being used for construction work on the Jerusalem light rail project.

MicroBalrog Notes:

1. Ban guns. They'll use tractors. And illegal guns.

2. Guns are even useful against guys with tractors.

Less and less army recruits

2008-07-01T13:20:00.000+03:00

According to the department of Human Resources Planning of the IDF, only 52% of the young men will be joining the army this year.

Year after year, the percentage of people avoiding military service increases - and yet, states the Army, "this situation will not hurt national security".

I suspect it will not hurt national security because we do not need these men anyway.

The more people opt out of 'compulsory' military service, the better - because the more of them opt out, the more pressure it puts on the army to switch over to a real, voluntary military.

Via Oleg Volk

2008-06-25T15:24:00.000+03:00

Germany Jails Homeschool Parents - AGAIN

2008-06-25T14:54:00.000+03:00

On Wednesday, June 18, a district court in the German state of Hesse sentenced Jurgen and Rosemary Dudek each to three months in prison simply because they homeschool their seven children.

More here.

I see a sense of certain irony that the press release is dated June 19th - Freedom Day.

I would gloat about this as well - but this is Israel, and ISrael, just like Germany, does NOT know better about this.

If you have children, I suggest you GTFO of a country that bans homeschooling - even if you do not intend to homeschool yourself. A country that bans homeschooling is not likely to respect any kind of parental rights.

Knesset Approves Castle Doctrine

2008-06-25T09:35:00.001+03:00

Knesset approves law allowing property owners to kill intruders

By Haaretz Service

The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee on Wednesday approved in second and third readings a broad version of the "Shai Dromi Bill," which absolves from criminal responsibility anyone who kills or injures an intruder in his home, business or farm.

According to the approved version, "a person shall not be held criminally responsible for an action that was necessary immediately to repel someone breaking into or entering a residence, place of business or fenced farm, with the intention of perpetrating a crime, or someone trying to break in."

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the Israeli Libertarian calls "retarded". Sure, it's a very nice bill. I agree with it almost completely.

But let's be honest:

Practically nobody in Israel can own guns.

What good does it do to an 82-year-old grandmother (the usual target of break-ins in this country) when a 17-year-old fool gets into her house with a knife or simply a stick? Or even his bare hands?

As he slams her, head-first, into a wall, will the fact that she has a right to self-defense be of any use to her?

Those in support of citizen self-defense must recognize this for what it is: an empty, idiotic gesture.

The right to self-defense is useless without the tools of self-defense.

Plain, Senseless Thuggery

2008-06-22T11:38:00.001+03:00

"The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) released its semi-annual report Sunday, detailing evidence of abuse inflicted on Palestinian detainees while being taken into custody by Israeli soldiers.

The report, dubbed "Unlawful in reality – soldiers' abuse of Palestinian detainees," unveils a series of cases in which Palestinians who were arrested and handcuffed were abused by IDF soldiers while being detained or transported to a holding facility, to the extent that some of them needed medical attention.

The PCATI report noted 90 testimonies of abuse between 2006 and 2007, but said the actual number of cases is higher. The IDF, said the report, is doing little to nothing to stop this abuse."

The newsflash is from here.

What really freaks me out is not really the article, but the public's reaction to it. Let us head over to Ynet and see what the readers think.

Right now, none of the commenters are even bothered that the soldiers are illegally abusing people. The only commenter who thinks this is disgusting is an American poster.

The locals post niceties such as this:

"send the human right group members for a training in China

these persons have nothing to do in their lives except to denounce bad jews."

Another fellow is 'not bothered by this' becase 'it means the IDF is fighting terror (despite having an incompetent government)'.

How does this mean that the IDF is fighting terorr?

Are these people, perchance, torturing terrorists to obtain useful information (which is illegal)? Are they perhaps interrogating them?

No, this is not the case. What we're talking about here is the soldiers grabbing some guys who may or may not even be terrorists, beating them - read the article! - and then handing them over to Shabak, who may or may not torture them for informatio. That is often illegal too, but that is not the point.

If one is a great fan of overreaching, sadistical government, they may argue here that torturing people for information should be legal.

But what purpose on earth does it serve to just grab people and beat them up?

One of the founding values of the IDF was supposed to be "the dignity of Man". How does it preserve the Dignity of Man to act like this? Do you suppose the dignity of Palestinian suspects is furthered by them being beaten up like that? Do you think the dignity of the soldiers is?

Why can anybody support this? What use is this to anyone, outside of plain, senseless thuggery?

P.S. I do not, naturally, believe that the IDF deliberately issues orders for soldiers to abuse Palestinians, or anything like that. However, the fact that a lot of people are okay with this behavior, and that the army does not properly investigate it, is symptomatic of many things wrong with our society.

It's BAAACK

2008-06-22T11:33:00.000+03:00

My dear friends!

I realize, of course, that I have most likely lost all readers in the past three months that this blog has been silent, but I am back, to bring you more of my snarky, hate-filled comments regarding the future of the Israeli welfare state (short summary: it has none).

That's just insane.

2008-03-06T10:11:00.000+02:00

The Knesset passed in first reading a bill increasing the maximum penalty for the sale of firecrackers to 7 years.

Do I need to comment at all? Can there be comments on this?

IDF troops mutiny over Sofas, abandon post

2008-02-21T13:41:00.001+02:00

From Yedioth Ahronoth:

Five soldiers of the Shaked Batallion of the Givati Brigade abandoned their posts yesterday due to a conflict with their commander.

According to the IDF spokesman, the troops have abandoned the front-line outpost (later to return) due to their commanders' attempt to enforce a General Staff Order according to which no civilian furniture may be put in Army tents, in this case – several sofas.

Original Article in Hebrew

Now returning to the actual topic of the blog...

2008-02-18T11:21:00.000+02:00

Apparently, the Central Bank is considering removing Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir from the relevant money notes, and replacing them outright with politically neutral poets.

That is a great thing, in my opinion. The worship of David Ben-Gurion (Altalena disaster, anyone?), and Golda really, really needs to end.

Remember this one, conservatives?

2008-02-18T11:14:00.001+02:00

A Blast from the Past.

2008-02-18T11:13:00.001+02:00

Why National Health care will kill your freedom

2008-02-15T13:33:00.003+02:00

State-funded health care has always been the flagship project of modern-day welfare statists. Golda Meir is famous, among other things, for diverting funds from the front during her tenure as a minister in 1948, so that the Israeli state-funded health care system could be funded.

Varying arguments exist at to its effectiveness and cost – arguments from cost, life expectancy, infant mortality, and blah, blah, blah. I do not possess the intellectual and statistical tools necessary to properly discuss the effectiveness of this measure, but I will do so once I've researched the issue.

But there is something that should be really glaringly obvious.

Let us suppose that we have a state-owned health care system in place. For simplicity, suppose that this a system where people simply pay for the system from their tax money.

So here are Citizen A, Citizen B, and Citizen C. Should citizen C start smoking – and potentially, cause himself lung cancer – he will thus hike up the health care expenditures of our theoretical country, and thus jack up the health care bill of A and B. If previously, banning smoking was an issue for two or three prudes at best, now citizen A and B have a vested monetary interest in voting for a smoking ban.

When a group of people believes that they're acting for their own self-interest, they may eventually switch to another avenue of profit if the current one doesn't work as well as they expected it to. Conversely, if a group of people believes that they're acting for a higher cause, they'll often get disillusioned, tire of it, and leave. But teach people they can do both at the same time (in the way that teachers' unions persuade everybody that by whining for higher pay, they are actually 'securing the future of our children) – and you have yourself a truly relentless contingent.

Now here are Citizen A and Citizen B – they're well-persuaded that by destroying the hobbies making C's life worthwhile, they're both doing him good and improving their own paycheck. Do you imagine how miserable these two are going to make you?

Consider the United Kingdom with its variety of health-related media fads – a struggle (recently) against smoking in pubs, for compulsory 'health food' in schools, and now, using health as a justification for fingerprinting children. Because, you know, a monitored child is a healthy child. Consider in this vein Israel, with the government still struggling against alcohol consumption. Oh, and consider the War on Drugs.

How does that tie in all of a sudden, you ask?

Once you've persuaded society that it's good and proper to have A and B to pay for C's health care, then the best and most important argument against the war on drugs, against bans on the food-of-the-week, against regulations on how much fashion models may weigh – the argument that a person owns his own body – loses all weight forever. If A and B are compelled to pay for C's health expenses, it would be downright immoral for him to live a lifestyle that keeps A and B's expenses up.

Nationalized health care is the last brick in the wall encasing our freedoms. Once it's in place, it's pointless to rattle our chains and shout "For the love of God, Montressor!"

In that story that doesn't help anybody, either.

A simple advocacy of the jury system

2008-02-14T19:24:00.000+02:00

Today I discovered – after reading the student magazine at Tel-Aviv University, 'Thesis' – that 98% of trial proceedings in Israel end in a conviction. This number is not, of course, in itself meaningful So let us compare this to similar numbers in the US, or – even better – the Russian Federaion. Approximately 20% of US trials, and 18% of Russian trials end in an acquittal – or, in other terms, about ten times as many, in relative, not absolute numbers, as in the Israeli justice system.

Something is clearly wrong here. Naturally, the fact Israel allows the prosecution to appeal the case increases the power of the government. Under Russian law, the judge in an appeals court is prohibited to render a decision that would worsen the situation of the defendant or convict. He can, at worst, render a previous judgement stand, but never make it worse for you. In America, if the jury finds you not guilty, it's over – but not so in Israel.

Worse, Israel's system doesn't have juries at all – it has judges, and that's it. Judges who are not appointed by elected officials or elected directly – in fact, none of the judges in Israel are elected directly – but instead, appointed by a committee where most of the members are judges or members of the attorneys' association. As result, they copy the governing prejudices of a single narrow caste, and apply them to their practice with varying degree of subtley.

That, of course, is the very monstrosity that a jury system is designed to prevent.

Contemplate, in comparison, the American jury in the way it is supposed to function. You have twelve people, selected at random. Then, unlike an Israeli court, where a vote of 2-1 judges is enough to convict a man on the facts of the case, the unanimous agreement of all 12 jurors is necessary to acquit.

Naturally speaking, should there be the suspicion that the jury convicted you due to their long-standing hatred of blacks, Jews, bald people, you will be allowed to appeal. But the converse is not true. The jury can vote to acquit you, and should they do so, it is almost impossible that their decision will be reversed.

Naturally, this leads to a certain amount of people being released who shouldn't be – somewhere on the Internet, a particularly trigger-happy reader is already typing the name 'O.J.Simpson', but of course, that's the whole damn point of juries.

Naturally, juries rarely to acquit people who are blatantly and obviously evil murderers – though it sometimes happens (see O.J. Simpson again). Had they been known to often make such mistakes, humanity would have long since abandoned the trial by jury.

When American judges are polled on their opinion on their cases in a variety of research, they usually state they would have made the same decision as the jurors – except as, as I said, in a variety of borderline situations where the scales could conceivably tip both ways.

It is exactly in such situations that the jury – with it's lack of elite-dictated prejudices, and, most importantly, with its tendency to acquit – is going to come in useful.

Sure, maybe a few more guilty people will be set free. It's still better than having innocent people imprisoned.

And rember: It's better to set two dozen guilty men free than to imprison one innocent.