May, 1. Comrades, let's celebrate!

[jorb]

When people protest against parliament's expansion of power, they tend to get ignored. When they protest against anything a king does, they tend to get executed for treason.

You can assert that all you want but the historical record simply does not support you.

[Potjeh]

I thought we're already at the part where we all pass our opinions as facts. You're certainly at that part at least

[pyrale]

[There are plenty of cases where comparisons with Hitler are very apt, and this is one such instant. I'm not accusing Obama of genocide -- after all he's just responsible for the deaths of a couple of hundred people -- what I am saying however is that his empty rhetoric makes him a demagouge, comparison with Hitler or not.

Yeah, and there are plenty of examples not using hitler to illustrate your speech (by the way, I thought you didn't like anecdotal examples - where has praxeology gone ?) and there are plenty of politicians that would have been a bright example of bending language.
Demagogy comes in which examples and comparisons you pick.

Much like picking a controversial case such as OJ simpson because most people will agree with you instead of choosing a doubtless example of jury fail where you might find people with different opinions.

I thought we're already at the part where we all pass our opinions as facts. You're certainly at that part at least

[jorb]

blablabla

Was I wrong when I claimed that the jury is a limited function even of an American court? Was I wrong when I pointed out that democratic rule of law would be a bad idea? (It's the first thing they teach you at law school) Was I wrong when I claimed that the Europeans built things in India and Africa? Was I wrong when I claimed that most early Indian Factory stations were actually paid for? Did I provide a reference? Was I wrong when I claimed that Britain wasn't generally hated in India?

No, the thing is that everytime I prove your shallow and unreflected support for democracy wrong either by reasoning or by example you switch topics entirely.

[Potjeh]

You were wrong when you called for factual statement when all statements you make in these arguments are pure opinions. Like, for example, that time you claimed war was more civilized in ye olde days. I don't recall seeing any civilian casualties through the ages charts, or a thorough analysis of real reasons for wars (and not just casus belli).

I can't argue with your reasoning because it starts with a very odd set of postulates, and well, logic can prove anything given the right postulates.

What does get me, though, is that you insist on others following rules of formal debate when you don't do it yourself, which strikes me as quite monarchial

And my support for democracy has nothing to do with any political ideals, it's merely a pragmatic opinion. Democracy has achieved (in my subjective opinion) the highest quality of life for it's citizens of all the governments tried thus far, so I reckon it's on the right track at least.

[Markoff_Chaney]

Meh. Words can have multiple definitions.

Yes, and some are more functional than others.

And in that vein, I think we can agree that the word "democracy" doesn't have to refer exclusively to direct democracies where all powers of government are decided on a strictly majoritarian basis (i.e. mob rule). Such a system has not ever existed (and rightly so). It's hardly functional to limit the definition to this one imaginary system. Instead, it makes more sense to use the word "democracy" to refer to a range of systems that feature meaningful democratic mechanisms.

I do agree with you on your second point. "Democracy" is often used as a synonym for "good". We should be wary of that bullshit.

Prices on a free market change and evolve over time, but if you do not respect what they are at a given point then you are a defrauder or a thief.

There are no price controls in a free market. If I wish to buy an item at a price above its market value or sell an item at a price below its market value, then I am free to do so. It's only theft or fraud if one of the parties is forced into the deal or lied to.

[...] the jury fills a very particular function, namely to deliver a verdict on the guilt or innocence of the charged party.

Fun fact: in common law nations, juries also decide whether the law itself is just. So even if the defendant is guilty of the charges, the jury can still vote to acquit on the basis that the charges do not constitute an actual crime. Needless to say, this is controversial.

[pyrale]

Was I wrong when I claimed that the jury is a limited function even of an American court?

You didn't say that. You said, quoting you :

Most people are able to recognize that a "democratization" of the courts would be the same as mob rule.

Was I wrong when I pointed out that democratic rule of law would be a bad idea? (It's the first thing they teach you at law school)

Well, actually you semt pretty satisfied with 19th century democracies applying rule of law in this post :

Yes. Let us blank out completely that the entire 19th century was a libertarian utopia, with predictable, associated and triumphant economic, social and scientific progress.
[...]
The state generally restricted itself to [...] rule of law [...]

Was I wrong when I claimed that the Europeans built things in India and Africa? Was I wrong when I claimed that most early Indian Factory stations were actually paid for? Did I provide a reference? Was I wrong when I claimed that Britain wasn't generally hated in India?

Actually, your controversial words were :

The bringing of the colonies into the world wide global system of division of labor was of course an economic boon both for them and for their colonizers

No, the thing is that everytime I prove your shallow and unreflected support for democracy wrong either by reasoning or by example you switch topics entirely.

The thing is you don't remember what you said.

[Markoff_Chaney]

by the way, nice trolling, using massive godwin and pointing out similar behaviour from Obama and Hitler in a sentence criticizing demagogy.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. In my experience, the people who are quickest to accuse other people of trolling are, themselves, trolls.

[jorb]

There are no price controls in a free market. If I wish to buy an item at a price above its market value or sell an item at a price below its market value, then I am free to do so. It's only theft or fraud if one of the parties is forced into the deal or lied to.

The point was that just because an evolutionary system is in perpetual flux that does not mean that its actual state at a precise point in time is meaningless and shouldn't be respected. The argument for linguistic laissez faire goes something like "language evolves, so we shouldn't point out problems with a particular use of it, or be critical of a particular development in it", my point was that that is nonsense. The point wasn't that you cannot offer or ask some other price for a particular good, but simply that you need to respect the prices asked by others, and that you cannot set your price out of tune with the market and expect to make money. Anyone can maim a language however he or she chooses, but I don't have to take that seriously.

In short: Yes, of course.

[MagicManICT]

Juries work just fine in USA, BTW.

From experience: No, they don't.

I'm sorry, but my peers aren't imbeciles and nitwits. Half the jurors are people that can't think for themselves (otherwise they'd have used one of the innumerable excuses from jury duty). Another large fraction are lawyers who really can't get excepted from jury duty (most of which I'd trust on a jury as they know how things work, but there's enough that want to play favor sharing that I don't trust any of them). The rest are people that have no excuses or are just civic minded enough to serve proudly.

Is a trial by jury better than other systems? Yes, but it's not without its flaws.