As I Contemplate A Truck Driving Career...

Anarchist Highway from lewrockwell.com 

By Joshua Bennett

July 4, 2014

 

Who will build the roads? I have been asked this question enough times to make my head hurt, as most free market Libertarians have. Libertarian scholars much wiser than I have answered this question,  but the inevitable follow up is, “Is there an example you can you point to where this would work?”

I think there is.

The Dalton Highway, otherwise known to Alaskans as the Haul Road, is what I think is the closest example to an Anarchist road in America.

Financed in 1974 by the State and different oil companies and built by Alyeska Pipeline Services, the Haul Road was built to service the North Slope oil fields of Alaska. Alyeska maintained the road until the State of Alaska took over this service. This “service” is such that, just this year, a 150-mile stretch of the road was so bad that 15 mph was too fast to travel. A truck driver hopped into a State road grader and did a little road maintenance himself for about 30 miles; it turned out to be the best stretch of the road. The State was quite miffed because one person did that much during a time the DOT was complaining about lack of funding (but no one will rat out the driver who did it). The trip to Deadhorse is nearly 500 miles from Fairbanks, the industry hub for the oil fields.

There is one private “truck stop” on the route at the halfway point,Coldfoot, population of about 10. In the 12 years that I have driven the route, I have seen maybe a dozen Alaska State troopers on the road. For the most part, you can travel to Deadhorse back and forth for an entire winter and not see a cop. You would think that this would mean the road is in total, constant chaos, with road rage in abundance and crime around every corner.

Not so. The truck drivers that operate on the road have an unwritten code of ethics that provides for a safe trip on an otherwise dangerous road. Every driver governs himself. While the State does have a speed limit, it is rarely followed when the road is in good condition. But when two trucks meet on the narrow roadway, they slow down to a safe speed of around 35 mph or less, so they won’t “rock” each other from loose gravel on the mostly gravel road. There is no State law requiring this, but it is a soon-to-be-sorry trucker who is new to the road, who won’t listen to friendly advice and who decides he wants to drive in an uncourteous manner, not slowing down when meeting oncoming traffic. If you are known to rock other trucks, the word spreads quickly, and when you meet a few trucks together, they will put the hammer down and make sure to rock your truck. Everyone on the road knows who “that guy” is; the law says he can drive 50 mph and by golly, he is going to.

After a few windshields and the paint being literally rocked off his truck, he gets the point, and becomes a courteous fellow. Social pressure at its finest.

The weather on the road can drop below -50 in the winter, and although the law doesn’t require anyone to stop and help a stranded truck driver, again the word will get out that you don’t want to be a nice guy. Since it is not a matter of if, but when, you yourself will break down, you put yourself in harm’s way; no one will stop to help you. There is no cell phone service for about 450 miles of the trip, and AAA is out of the question. Your life literally depends on how you treat your neighbor. Company rivalries, feuds and squabbles that may happen in town, all go by the wayside. There are severalaccidents that happen on the road every year, and everyone stops to help. Troopers rarely, if ever, are called out, and somehow the incidents seem to take care of themselves. Within a day or so, the accident is completely cleaned up, no citations are issued, and the road continues to operate. Private insurance picks up the tab.

A couple years ago there was one nasty person who happens to be employed as a revenue officer by the North Slope Borough, known in other terms as a cop. This armed bureaucrat took his job of being a protector to great lengths, and was known to be very uncourteous, to rock oncoming traffic, to write numerous citations of protection, and was quite arrogant to others on the CB radio. He had a badge and he let you know it. He was a jerk. One fine day when the temperature was hanging around -50, his car broke down, a couple of hours from his home base of Deadhorse. No one would help him. No one even cared that he was broke down. He had to sit in his car and wait for a Borough tow truck to come rescue him. I hope he got a little chilly. He now rarely roams the road looking for people to protect. He gets it now.

When you arrive to the oilfields of the North Slope, you are required to stop at a security gate before you can gain access to the 200,000 + acre field, operated and maintained by various oil company operators. This is not a State check point, it is the entrance to a free market society. All of the roads around the oil field to the different drilling sites are built and maintained by the different oil companies.

The guards are usually very friendly and accommodating, they are private persons making a living like you. They have no weapons, (although some do carry guns for protection against bears). When you are on the field you agree to follow the posted speeds, and various traffic and safety rules that the oil companies have made. There are various security folks driving around, and they will pull you over if you are flagrantly breaking a rule.

But no State cops.

My brother was pulled over for speeding recently, the security guy was nice, explained to him why he pulled him over and said, ” I am going to write you up unless there was an emergency reason for your speeding, but there is no monetary fine or penalty involved. But I have to warn you if you get 3 of these you won’t be permitted back onto the field, but you can appeal this”.

It was very cold out so my brother said, “let’s go sit in your vehicle I want to talk to you about a few things”. My brother got into his pickup and explained how they were engaging in a voluntary law society right then (while this guy is writing him up), and how since there was no force involved or implied, neither party felt threatened. My brother told how it was in his best interest to follow the rules so he could make a living on the oil field, and yet he wasn’t forced to be there and no one was going to shoot him in the head for breaking a simple rule. A monetary loss if you decide to be stupid since you won’t be allowed to work there anymore, but no force is involved, and it’s all voluntary. The security guy really got the idea, and said he thought it could work in every day society as well, you have a private road, obey the rules or they don’t allow you to use their property.

My brother has commented to me that at no time has he ever felt threatened when working there, or interacting with security, and I can say I have never felt threatened either, which is a far cry from when I see flashing blue and red lights from a car of a person who wishes to give me a little State protection.

I have not heard of anyone being murdered there, in fact I have heard of little to no crime, and there are about 30,000 plus people working up there at any given time. It is its own sprawled out city.

Imagine that, a lesson in Anarchy, a free society example, being put into practice by those giant, evil, oil corporations.

The next time you see a car broken down by the side of the road, with cars speeding by consider that the Officers of Justice [sic] threaten to fine individuals not licensed by the state who try to show real compassion to their fellow men. In Alaska, you can be given a citation from the State for stopping to help someone pull their car out of a ditch. Or a fender- bender with a cop eagerly writing a citation, not so the person at fault can pay restitution to the person he hit, but so the State can get its fair share, you can thank the roadfare/welfare State, who in its infinite wisdom of owning all roads has destroyed the meaning of self-ownership of the people driving on them, and made them forget the value of their neighbor.

And when people ask you “Who will build the roads?” and insist that it just won’t work, you can point to the Haul Road of Alaska, the Anarchist road of America.

The Best of Joshua Bennett

 

Joshua Bennett is a Father of 8 homeschooled children, Anarcho-Capitalist, Owner of Bighorn Enterprises trucking company, author and editor of Patriot's Lament blog and host of the Patriot's Lament radio program in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Copyright © 2014 Joshua Bennett

Previous article by Joshua Bennett: Do Homeschoolers Make Good Citizens?

From Lew Rockwell

8 Jury Nullification Objections Rebutted

By Steve Silverman

Flex Your Rights

May 23, 2014

 

A recent Chicago Tribune editorial targets a new fully informed jury bill introduced by the New Hampshire House of Representatives. The bill would strengthen the current state law passed in 2012 that allows lawyers “to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.” The editorial is noteworthy, because it deploys the most common legal establishment objections to jury nullification.

Objection #1: Jury nullification was a tool of the Jim Crow South

It begins by reminding readers of one of the most horrific examples of racial injustice in the Jim Crow South.

In 1955, two white men went on trial in Mississippi for the murder of Emmett Till, a black 14-year-old from Chicago who supposedly had been too friendly to a white woman. In the Jim Crow South, there was never much chance of conviction, and they were acquitted by a jury that deliberated for barely an hour. The two men, free of the danger of prosecution, later acknowledged their guilt. That case and many like it are worth keeping in mind in any consideration of the place of jury nullification in the criminal justice system.

Let there be no mistake about it, racist juries routinely failed to deliver justice in the Jim Crow South. And jury injustice sometimes happens today when, for example, juries acquit police caught on video brutalizing defenseless citizens. So how can advocates reconcile the abuse of jury nullification with its noble history of delivering justice in the face of unjust laws?

As Paul Butler, a Georgetown University law professor and former federal prosecutor suggests, “nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else.”

Moreover, according to legal scholar Clay Conrad, the jury is a convenient scapegoat for institutional injustices. After the trial is over, the jury doesn’t exist. Jurors return home and go back to work. So when police, prosecutors, judges, and even lawmakers are incompetent or malicious, they can blame the jury to divert attention from their failures.

Objection #2: Jury nullification undermines rule of law

Under existing New Hampshire law, lawyers are allowed to tell jurors about jury nullification as part of their defense strategy. Unfortunately, some judges are undercutting the law by issuing contradictory jury instructions. For example, during the trial of Rich Paul, a Keene man convicted last year for selling marijuana, Judge John C. Kissinger told the jury that they “must follow the law as I explain it.” Paul spent one year in jail.

It’s notable that the Tribune overlooks Judge Kissinger’s subversion of the rule of law while insisting that the new bill would “undermine rule of law.” Nevertheless, those who claim that jury nullification is a violation of rule of law are wrong. “Jury nullification is a part of our law,”according to Cato Institute legal scholar Tim Lynch. “It’s part of the checks and balances in our constitutional system. Just as pardon power is used by governors and the president, juries have the power to bring back acquittals.”

Andrew Hamilton, in his famous 1735 defense of publisher John Peter Zenger who was on trial for seditious libel, implored the jury to ignore the judgement of the Crown’s hand-picked judges.

I know, may it please Your Honor, the jury may do so. But I do likewise know that they may do otherwise. I know that they have the right beyond all dispute to determine both the law and the fact; and where they do not doubt of the law, they ought to do so. Leaving it to judgment of the court whether the words are libelous or not in effect renders juries useless (to say no worse) in many cases.

The jury voted to acquit Zenger. This case, according to Conrad, “was the foundation of both our understanding of where a jury comes from and our understanding of freedom of the press. This is the history the founders knew. This was the background they had in mind when they wrote the 6th Amendment.”

Objection #3: The Supreme Court struck down jury nullification

The Tribune and other jury critics frequently cite the 1895 Supreme Court decision, Sparf v. U.S.The court ruled that judges were not required to tell jurors about jury nullification. The ruling didn’t say that jurors didn’t have the power to nullify. Nor did it say that judges couldn’t tell the jury about nullification; it simply said that they didn’t have to.

This decision has led to the common practice by U.S. judges of penalizing criminal defense lawyers who try to present a nullification argument in front of the jury. Consequently, jury nullification is seen as a de facto power of juries. So unless you’re a citizen of New Hampshire, most jurors cannot rely on judges to inform them of this “secret” constitutional power.

Objection #4: Jury nullification is a power not a right

The Tribune argues that “the power to nullify is not the same as the right to do so. Because of the power granted to juries and the nature of deliberations, they are free to acquit or convict for any reason they choose.”

This power vs right debate is largely academic. But for what it’s worth, the second president of the United States John Adams agreed with Hamilton [and disagreed with the Tribune] when he wrote in 1771 that “it is not only [a juror’s] right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

Objection #5: Jury nullification violates the jury oath

Law professor James Duane calls this “perhaps the most threadbare judicial objection to nullification arguments. This ominous-sounding charge has no logical substance, although it naturally carries much emotional appeal.”

At the beginning of a criminal trial, jurors are typically asked to swear that they “will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help [me] God.”

Aside from being barely intelligible to most jurors, Duane notes, there’s no reason why a juror might not acquit based solely on “the evidence” if they believe the accused harmed no one or that a conviction would be unjust. As for what it means to make “a true deliverance,” nobody alive today knows for sure what that means.

Objection #6: Jury nullification can be wrongly used to convict the innocent

Attempting to equate jury nullification with unlawful behavior, the Tribune posits that “no one would argue that juries should convict an innocent defendant merely because they resent the burdensome requirements placed on prosecutors.” This confusingly-written concern for preserving defendants’ due process rights can, according to Tim Lynch, be addressed by properly-worded legislation.

“We can set [the law] in such a way where the defense will be in control. It will be up to the defense to make a jury nullification argument to the jury. Or it’s up to the defense to ask for a jury nullification instruction from the judge. It’s a tactical decision, just like whether or not the defendant will testify or not in court. It’s totally up to the defense to exercise the option or not.”

Objection #7: It’s not the jury’s role to disregard the law; work to change it instead

While the law might sometimes be unfair, according to theTribune,

The promotion of jury nullification rests on the assumption that 12 randomly chosen individuals are entitled to override the democratically expressed will of the citizenry. It’s true that there is considerable history in England and America of juries disregarding their instructions on principle. Before the Civil War, Northern juries sometimes refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, preferring to forgive defendants who helped escaped slaves.

Great point, Tribune! But what would you do if you were a Northern juror in 1855 deciding the guilt or innocence of an abolitionist accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act? More to the point, assume that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. (Heck, assume that the defendant confessed in court to helping Southern slaves escape to Canada!)

The Tribune’s answer would be to convict the defendant, because “jurors who disagree with legislated prohibitions are morally entitled to work to change them. But they have no business putting their preferences above what democratic institutions have decided.” In other words, it’s more ethical to set aside your conscience to comply with an evil law (and work to change it later) than it is to nullify such a law if you have the power to do so. That’s simply ludicrous. Also, an ethical citizen can vote their conscience as a juror and work to change bad laws too.

In addition, jury nullification critics tend to overstate their case by claiming that jury nullification “overrides the democratically expressed will of the citizenry.” Jury nullification does not repeal bad laws, rather it allows juries to show mercy for defendants if they believe the law is wrong or is simply being misapplied.

As the Fugitive Slave Act, the Volstead Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and every other evil, absurd, or hysterical legislation has proven time and again — legislators are hardly infallible. Jury nullification is perhaps the most important vote that citizens can use to alert law makers when their work is flawed. It does not “override” democracy. It is part of our democracy.

Objection #8: There’s no guarantee that jury nullification will suspend only bad laws

This objection circles back to the initial objection that juries might use nullification to ignore the law and acquit defendants accused heinous crimes.

When Paul Butler was a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., he observed that “there was rarely nullification in crimes with victims; jurors voted ‘not guilty’ in those cases because they had reasonable doubt about the government’s evidence, often because they didn’t believe the police.” This tendency among jury nullification critics to conflate reasonable doubt acquittals with nullification confuses the issue. It also sets juries against an impossible standard of perfection that we don’t expect from any other players in the criminal justice system.

Are juries perfect? Of course not. But neither are the police officers who have discretion to make arrests. And neither are the prosecutors who, according to Butler, have more power than judges, because they “have discretion over whether to charge a suspect, and for what offense.” Moreover, prosecutors “tend to throw the book at defendants, to compel them to plead guilty in return for less harsh sentences.”

To the more than 3,200 U.S. prisoners serving life without parole for nonviolent offenses, the problem is certainly not that too many jurors are using their discretion to nullify bad laws and malicious prosecutions. Far from it. Fortunately, New Hampshire law might soon show theTribune and other jury critics that they have nothing to fear by informing jurors of their right, power, and duty to nullify bad laws.

Reprinted with permission from Flex Your Rights.org.

The Best of Steve Silverman