Pardon my delay in responding.

Some of the problems with the court grow out of its internal structure and procedures to be sure.  Another group of problems grows out of what is brought before the court.  Your concept addresses the internal issues well enough.  However, what does it do to address selection of issues?

What is brought before the court grows out of conflicts among various legal "parties".  Unable to resolve the conflicts among themselves, the parties subject themselves to the court (ideally, voluntarily).  Some folk engage in mischief to create such conflicts and drag others (victims) into court in order to separate them from their property without earning it.  Maybe having more eyes on a case will help.

Consider electronic voting.  Everybody wants a paper trail.  Accountability.  How can this be done in your system while at the same time maintaining anonymity?  I think anonymity is a basis of security in your system that you hope will contribute positively to impartiality.  Is there a way to have both?  Without accountability, power reverts to the parties operating the computer hardware.  They can let everybody adjudicate their @$$3$ off and just post the result they want!

I am reminded of Stalin's quote, "It's not the people who cast the votes who decide elections.  Elections are decided by those who COUNT the votes!"

"therefore we and our progeny are doomed to the continue swings between warfare and liberty. "

If Orwell's "1984" is any indication, there may come a time when all could WISH for cyclic war/peace as opposed to perpetual war.  It appears however that Orwell was not predicting the future - he was describing the present (in 1948)

"As with libertarian principles which we appear to agree on,"

Recently, poking around here on the Freedoms Phoenix site, I found an article with Rothbard's definition of Libertarianism:

(gistwise) Libertarianism is a political philosophy that concerns itself with the proper application of force.

I mention this just to say that I have only recently (3 months tops) become aware of this.  I had more "libertine" notions associated with Libertarianism.  That being said, I don't know whether I "agree with Libertarianism" or not.  It's too soon to say after being so recently properly introduced.

I am somewhat a constitutional aficionado.  The constitution proposes a set of conditions under which force may be used.  I lay that set of conditions out in my book "The Constellation of Liberty".  I don't know how the "typical Libertarian" (if there is such a person) would feel about this list.  Myself, I think it is very compatible with ZAP.

"My system is merely a stepping stone to a system created by the free market."

Which brings us back to the "monopoly of the use of force" concept of the state.  Objectionable as the idea is, having a single reliable despotic "controller" may be preferable to having a system that vacillates randomly among "operators".  This is an important aspect of the concept of secularism.  The word has a connotation of a century.  It means "slow to change".  That whole "light and transient cause" idea from the DoI.

Dear DC Treybil,

I cannot disagree with you on any of the issues you noted. In my writings I have merely set out to create an avenue to follow that I believe would eventually lead us to the outcome you appear to endorse.

As with libertarian principles which we appear to agree on, how to get there has been, in my opinion, the stumbling block that has done more to keep its principles from being embraced, then any other reason.

How can we get others to embrace principles which we cannot ourselves agree on how to implement them?

My idea is really quite simple.  Set up a superior system, not necessarily the best system, but one that will open people’s eyes to just how effective the free market can be if left alone to tackle the many problems that society encounters.   

The educational voucher system we libertarians promoted during the early 1990’s motivated both the charter schools and also the home schoolers, and unexpected benefit. Even though I am not really in favor of government funded charter schools, it is doing some good at opening peoples eyes to how crappy government schools are?  

By expanding the number of Judges, it will allow for greater participation. IF you have a better idea, other than education whihc we both agree to but is getting us nowhere, don't hole back.    

My system is merely a stepping stone to a system created by the free market.         

DC,

The current Supreme Count "plurality" necessary to concur or overrule an existing opinion is 50% +1. Gaining a consensus in a substantially larger group would require a great effort on the part of the participants; however one or the other opinion would prevail. I think it is clear that a small group of Judges wielding such great power has proven insufficient in protecting individual rights and therefore even if people are higher educated, they currently have little or no means of overruling poor judicial opinions. I have yet to have anyone show me a preferable system to mine. I surely won't be easy to work out all the kinks, but as I see it, we have little or no other choice. If my system doesn't work, than it appears there is no other potential system that will consistently provide the necessary liberties to secure a civil society and therefore we and our progeny are doomed to the continue swings between warfare and liberty.

"However, how can you have an entity whose job it is to legally usurp the rights of Citizens through various taxes, fees, malum prohibitum legislation, fines and  penalties be placed in control"

Am I to gather that by this you refer to the legislative branch?

And that by this:

"the very system which is supposed o be protecting those rights against such actions."

you refer to the judiciary?

"Allowing a politically controlled system the opportunity of controlling the Judiciary is a huge, huge mistake, "

The Declaration decries the tenure of judges being dependent upon the will of the King ALONE.  Moving tenure decisions to what amounts to a large committee was a step in the right direction in 1789.  Now, instead of being the puppet/victim of a King, the judiciary is a co-conspirator in the scam that is passed off as "our government".

"the specific number of jurists"

According to "Parkinson's Law", the maximum number of people that can consistently arrive at a consensus is 12 - oddly enough, the typical number of jurors in a trial.  By the time you reach 20, it's all over but the crying.  To get to 500+, Congress has to divide itself into two houses and many specialized committees . . .  Something similar would be needed if you got beyond 20 participants.

Relating to your opening 3 paragraphs, I concur.  In the early 1980's, I encountered a fellow to whom I affectionately refer as "a tax nut".  He cited all the phrases from the constitution and the remarks made in various supreme court cases that supported his position.  I always felt like there was something he wasn't telling me.  Like what you say in this article.  That's what he failed to acknowledge.  His brother was a nationally-known celebrity.  Being from that strata of the socio-economic realm, he could afford to dabble in that.  Me, who dwells a few rungs below that, well maybe not so much.

I listened with interest, but without a full grasp of what he was saying, maintained the status quo.

"It my opinion, it cannot be stopped without a violent revolution and that my friends nobody wants because it does not solve the underlying problems that  got us into this mess in the first place, not even taking into consideration the millions that will be killed and maimed. Read you history books, it hasn’t worked at stopping the statist mentality."

In concurring with that statement, need I recite the old saw about "hacking at the branches"?

"Until people are willing to both protect their inalienable rights and stop acquiescing to the fascist state that constantly attempts to usurp our inalienable rights, the ruling statist mentality will continue to prevail. Obviously teaching people what inalienable rights are and why it is so important to protect them is critical, but we must still also create a system that is an improvement over the existing system."

Lack of education is a major part of the problem.

Promoting and providing and particiapting in that education is a major part of the solution.

There's the root of the SOLUTION.

You speak of creating a better system.  In that better system, the judiciary is more responsive to the people.  How can the people hope to properly supervise the judiciary without they themselves (all 325,000,000 of them, to use your figure, or at least as many of those as can and will) knowing the constitution?  How can they supervise something when they don't know what the actual legitimate mission of "our goverment" is?

That is a crucial part of that better system.  Better citizens.  Citizens better informed about legitimate government.

Current technology can facilitate that huge committee you seem to propose, but neither the technology itself nor the huge committee it facilitates can substitute for a widespread understanding of what proper government is.

A widespread understanding of proper government can contribute to lower levels of conflict of such severity as to merit attention of a court.

Which is to say, that widespread understanding of government can help people get it right to begin with.  That is the HIGHEST form of justice.

DC Treybil