Common law: judge-made law or jury-made justice?

David T Breaker correctly calls "Human Rights" the enemy of freedom.

Common law provides adequate protection, provided that jury trials remain prevalent.

Under common law, anyone who harms can be sued and the merits of the case deliberated over by a jury of peers. Ergo, where there is no harm, nobody sues.

The State has taken over the function of 'justice' where it should instead be concerned with securing our liberties. The State has it 180 degrees wrong.

The State legislates and as it does so, it subconsciously or consciously picks winners. Each statute, in some way, discriminates against or coddles some "group", which then has to be defined. If not defined, the law is open-ended - a gift for lawyers.

Statutes end up having to be rectified by more legislation, as unintended (or intended) negative consequences become apparent.

Thus, the law becomes more and more complicated such that only lawyers can unravel its labyrinthine meanderings and occult meanings.

The result is that 'justice' becomes expensive - too expensive for most people.

Ask the average person "what is the purpose of a jury?", and he will probably tell you that it is to decide as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

In fact, one of the most important roles of the jury is to determine whether the law itself is just. This has the effect of tempering the tyranny of legislators.

That is why many in the HoL, HoC and the civil service are beavering away behind the scenes to do away with jury trials. These people ought to be rooted out and exposed.

Some contend that jury trial is "judge-made law". I would argue that it is jury-made justice.