6 ms·

Just another reminder that there is no rule of law in the USA; its judicial system is an arm of oppression, not service. There's nothing we as individuals can

Just another reminder that there is no rule of law in the USA; its judicial system is an arm of oppression, not service. There's nothing we as individuals can do about it besides acknowledging the illegitimacy of laws and abiding by a basic empathetic moral code, but don't kid yourself about how that will be treated. If you feel like a law is wrong, look at why it was passed. There might be reasoning you aren't thinking of, like environmental damages. If you still feel like it's wrong, look at how likely the action it forbids is to hurt someone else by intent or accident. If you feel like that's extremely unlikely, and don't think you'll get caught, break that law! Part of civil disobedience is acknowledging that you may get caught and punished. But in doing so, you are riding on the fact that the punishment is arbitrary and offensive, which would rally people in support of you if it is carried out. At least, that's the idea. The real problem comes when your government is more than happy to simply arrest/beat/shoot people until they quiet down.

adventured 9y ago
Fortunately you're wrong. In reality, the US is one of the 20 least corrupt nations on the planet, on par with Ireland and Japan and less corrupt than France. It has very strong property protection laws, which is both why the judge returned the money (naturally that would happen in a nation with no rule of law huh), and why the Obama Administration took important steps to neuter civil asset forfeiture abuse. Can more be done to fully end the abuse? Of course. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept... The US also has rare universal Congressional support for ending civil asset forfeiture abuses. Jeff Sessions undid some of the fixes the Obama Administration made; it turns out that might have been ideal, as Congress is now going to put it down for good by law. Sept 2017: "In Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture" "The amendment passed with a voice vote, meaning it had overwhelming support." https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-passes-amendment-to-restrict-asset-forfeiture/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-p... Nov 2017: "A bipartisan group of senators wants to defund Attorney General Jeff Sessions' expansion of the Justice Department's civil asset forfeiture program, following similar efforts by libertarian-leaning and progressive members of the House earlier this year." http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-defunding-of-jeff-ses http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-defundi...
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  That's fair, but I'm not saying it isn't better than many other places, I'm just saying that it is very bad. Anyways, I'll believe it when I see it stop happening.
- avs733 9y ago
  Your source doesn't quite say what you are implying. They define corruption thusly: >Generally speaking as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. Corruption can be classified as grand, petty and political, depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector where it occurs. >Grand corruption consists of acts committed at a high level of government that distort policies or the central functioning of the state, enabling leaders to benefit at the expense of the public good. Petty corruption refers to everyday abuse of entrusted power by low- and mid-level public officials in their interactions with ordinary citizens, who often are trying to access basic goods or services in places like hospitals, schools, police departments and other agencies. >Political corruption is a manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision makers, who abuse their position to sustain their power, status and wealth. See animated definitions of many corruption terms in our Anti-corruption Glossary. The link you provided measures the PERCEPTION of corruption. It is perfectly plausible for there to be a huge amount of corruption and very little perception of corruption depending on many factors. The source describes it thusly: >No. The CPI is an indicator of perceptions of public sector corruption, i.e. administrative and political corruption. It is not a verdict on the levels of corruption of entire nations or societies, or of their policies, or the activities of their private sector. Citizens of those countries/territories that score at the lower end of the CPI often show the same concern about and condemnation of corruption as the public in countries that perform strongly. Their data sources primarily asks 'experts' which they define differently (additionally, one specifically asks business executives, one includes the general public, and one doesn't clearly specify) whether they perceive corruption to be an issue. While the exact questions vary, these two seem like representative examples: >In your country, how common is it for firms to make undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with the following and >First, how do you grade the problem of corruption in the country in which you are working? Second, has corruption decreased, stayed the same or increased compared with one year ago? Third, what aspects or implications of corruption in your country stand out to you as being particularly important? If the majority of the populace feels that seizure of drug profits is warranted, and the police generally label everything seized 'drug profits' than it is perfectly feasible that is an accepted narrative without any meaningful evidence being provided. They are the type of people who exist and are privileged by the normative power hierarchies in that society (hence the term 'expert' being applied to them by peers). These are the people least likely to experience that type of corruption/oppression...by design All of this comes down to the data they select. Your source uses the exact type of data which would hide corruption by this definition. That effect comes both through the selection of questions and the selection of people who will answer those questions. Their implementation of their definition of corruption largely results in a study of whether those with social capital feel like society treats them and their businesses fairly. It seems a poor metric of the types of systematic (designed) corruption experienced by others on a regular basis.
mulmen 9y ago
Surely this would require everyone to have perfect information at all times, otherwise how do we know if the law we conclude is wrong is based on something we didn't consider? We vote in elections, not with our actions. You're advocating anarchy.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Well that's why I think you should research the history behind the laws you're thinking of breaking, but I'd argue that it is more dangerous to blindly follow laws than to blindly ignore them, if you follow a simple "no theft" rule. Agency, life, property; if you take a broad definition, I'd argue that the only true crime is unilaterally taking from others. It's good to have due diligence on how your decisions affect others, and that's one possible function of a legal system, but it definitely is not the function of ours. It's like how the concept of "The Market" relies upon everyone having perfect information on every economic issue and decision. They don't, but we still use it. And sure, we suffer for that pretty regularly when we relax regulations too much, but what was that quote? "It's the worst system in the world except for all the other ones?"
- jstanley 9y ago
  And you're advocating blind subservience to authority. How can any authority be legitimate if the subordinates can't understand it?
  - mulmen 9y ago
    I'm arguing for democratic rule of law.
    - 8ytecoder 9y ago
      There's no democracy without civil disobedience - which includes going to jail for breaking the law. Almost every change in society has been brought about by someone "breaking" a law - escaping slavery, sitting in the front section of a bus, loving someone of the same sex,...etc. I can go on. Law plays catch-up with attitude changes and what we consider acceptable as a society. We may sometimes have to break the law first to fix it.
coliveira 9y ago
Not only this, but police forces are one of the few categories of workers where their union is praised and respected. This seems strange until you realize that the police is mostly structured to maintain the current status quo and oppress lower income people.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Correct. Police, firefighters and prison guard unions are good unions protecting us. Teachers unions are bad unions indoctrinating our youth with leftist ideology. That may explain why in the city I live in, the minimum educational requirements for the police 'academy' is a GED.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    It's not like education beyond that makes you a better officer.
    - freeone3000 9y ago
      Knowledge of the law would certainly help. Maybe a Bachelor's of Criminal Justice. Perhaps we can loosen that to related fields, and also allow Social Work or Civics or Pre-law. Maybe even just a general aptitude qualification, like flight attendants, and require an Associate's degree in literally anything. Education does make you a better person. Better people make better police officers.
      - SamReidHughes 9y ago
        Generally speaking education does not make you a better person. It can even make you a worse person than alternatives such as manual labor, working in a kitchen, or a job at a summer camp. Cops apparently don't need a two year course of study to understand the law well enough to do their jobs. Instead of spending years up front, an alternative is to spread that time throughout their career on basic stuff like fitness or gun training.
jancsika 9y ago
> If you feel like a law is wrong, look at why it was passed. There might be reasoning you aren't thinking of, like environmental damages. If you still feel like it's wrong, look at how likely the action it forbids is to hurt someone else by intent or accident. If you feel like that's extremely unlikely, and don't think you'll get caught, break that law! I feel like vaccine schedules are wrong, so I asked my pediatrician about them. I feel like global warming is a hoax, so I asked a scientist about it. I feel like a law is wrong, so I asked a legal expert about it. The next step to take is up to me, but in each case I'm confident I'd be starting with stronger footing that you would be with your process. Furthermore, I can pass that process on to others in a way that is less fragile and more efficient than your process. Ask your pediatrician. Ask your scientist colleague. Ask your law professor. In a world of good faith actors you'd still be reading primary research papers on epidemiology for years before moving to the second topic. In the real world you'd likely skip the necessary steps, risk making misguided decisions, and spreading that misguided decision-making process to others.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Yeah, good point.

adventured 9y ago

Fortunately you're wrong. In reality, the US is one of the 20 least corrupt nations on the planet, on par with Ireland and Japan and less corrupt than France. It has very strong property protection laws, which is both why the judge returned the money (naturally that would happen in a nation with no rule of law huh), and why the Obama Administration took important steps to neuter civil asset forfeiture abuse. Can more be done to fully end the abuse? Of course. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept... The US also has rare universal Congressional support for ending civil asset forfeiture abuses. Jeff Sessions undid some of the fixes the Obama Administration made; it turns out that might have been ideal, as Congress is now going to put it down for good by law. Sept 2017: "In Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture" "The amendment passed with a voice vote, meaning it had overwhelming support." https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-passes-amendment-to-restrict-asset-forfeiture/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-p... Nov 2017: "A bipartisan group of senators wants to defund Attorney General Jeff Sessions' expansion of the Justice Department's civil asset forfeiture program, following similar efforts by libertarian-leaning and progressive members of the House earlier this year." http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-defunding-of-jeff-ses http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-defundi...

leggomylibro 9y ago
That's fair, but I'm not saying it isn't better than many other places, I'm just saying that it is very bad. Anyways, I'll believe it when I see it stop happening.
avs733 9y ago
Your source doesn't quite say what you are implying. They define corruption thusly: >Generally speaking as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. Corruption can be classified as grand, petty and political, depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector where it occurs. >Grand corruption consists of acts committed at a high level of government that distort policies or the central functioning of the state, enabling leaders to benefit at the expense of the public good. Petty corruption refers to everyday abuse of entrusted power by low- and mid-level public officials in their interactions with ordinary citizens, who often are trying to access basic goods or services in places like hospitals, schools, police departments and other agencies. >Political corruption is a manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision makers, who abuse their position to sustain their power, status and wealth. See animated definitions of many corruption terms in our Anti-corruption Glossary. The link you provided measures the PERCEPTION of corruption. It is perfectly plausible for there to be a huge amount of corruption and very little perception of corruption depending on many factors. The source describes it thusly: >No. The CPI is an indicator of perceptions of public sector corruption, i.e. administrative and political corruption. It is not a verdict on the levels of corruption of entire nations or societies, or of their policies, or the activities of their private sector. Citizens of those countries/territories that score at the lower end of the CPI often show the same concern about and condemnation of corruption as the public in countries that perform strongly. Their data sources primarily asks 'experts' which they define differently (additionally, one specifically asks business executives, one includes the general public, and one doesn't clearly specify) whether they perceive corruption to be an issue. While the exact questions vary, these two seem like representative examples: >In your country, how common is it for firms to make undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with the following and >First, how do you grade the problem of corruption in the country in which you are working? Second, has corruption decreased, stayed the same or increased compared with one year ago? Third, what aspects or implications of corruption in your country stand out to you as being particularly important? If the majority of the populace feels that seizure of drug profits is warranted, and the police generally label everything seized 'drug profits' than it is perfectly feasible that is an accepted narrative without any meaningful evidence being provided. They are the type of people who exist and are privileged by the normative power hierarchies in that society (hence the term 'expert' being applied to them by peers). These are the people least likely to experience that type of corruption/oppression...by design All of this comes down to the data they select. Your source uses the exact type of data which would hide corruption by this definition. That effect comes both through the selection of questions and the selection of people who will answer those questions. Their implementation of their definition of corruption largely results in a study of whether those with social capital feel like society treats them and their businesses fairly. It seems a poor metric of the types of systematic (designed) corruption experienced by others on a regular basis.

mulmen 9y ago

Surely this would require everyone to have perfect information at all times, otherwise how do we know if the law we conclude is wrong is based on something we didn't consider? We vote in elections, not with our actions. You're advocating anarchy.

leggomylibro 9y ago
Well that's why I think you should research the history behind the laws you're thinking of breaking, but I'd argue that it is more dangerous to blindly follow laws than to blindly ignore them, if you follow a simple "no theft" rule. Agency, life, property; if you take a broad definition, I'd argue that the only true crime is unilaterally taking from others. It's good to have due diligence on how your decisions affect others, and that's one possible function of a legal system, but it definitely is not the function of ours. It's like how the concept of "The Market" relies upon everyone having perfect information on every economic issue and decision. They don't, but we still use it. And sure, we suffer for that pretty regularly when we relax regulations too much, but what was that quote? "It's the worst system in the world except for all the other ones?"
jstanley 9y ago
And you're advocating blind subservience to authority. How can any authority be legitimate if the subordinates can't understand it?
- mulmen 9y ago
  I'm arguing for democratic rule of law.
  - 8ytecoder 9y ago
    There's no democracy without civil disobedience - which includes going to jail for breaking the law. Almost every change in society has been brought about by someone "breaking" a law - escaping slavery, sitting in the front section of a bus, loving someone of the same sex,...etc. I can go on. Law plays catch-up with attitude changes and what we consider acceptable as a society. We may sometimes have to break the law first to fix it.

coliveira 9y ago

Not only this, but police forces are one of the few categories of workers where their union is praised and respected. This seems strange until you realize that the police is mostly structured to maintain the current status quo and oppress lower income people.

CalChris 9y ago
Correct. Police, firefighters and prison guard unions are good unions protecting us. Teachers unions are bad unions indoctrinating our youth with leftist ideology. That may explain why in the city I live in, the minimum educational requirements for the police 'academy' is a GED.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  It's not like education beyond that makes you a better officer.
  - freeone3000 9y ago
    Knowledge of the law would certainly help. Maybe a Bachelor's of Criminal Justice. Perhaps we can loosen that to related fields, and also allow Social Work or Civics or Pre-law. Maybe even just a general aptitude qualification, like flight attendants, and require an Associate's degree in literally anything. Education does make you a better person. Better people make better police officers.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      Generally speaking education does not make you a better person. It can even make you a worse person than alternatives such as manual labor, working in a kitchen, or a job at a summer camp. Cops apparently don't need a two year course of study to understand the law well enough to do their jobs. Instead of spending years up front, an alternative is to spread that time throughout their career on basic stuff like fitness or gun training.

jancsika 9y ago

> If you feel like a law is wrong, look at why it was passed. There might be reasoning you aren't thinking of, like environmental damages. If you still feel like it's wrong, look at how likely the action it forbids is to hurt someone else by intent or accident. If you feel like that's extremely unlikely, and don't think you'll get caught, break that law! I feel like vaccine schedules are wrong, so I asked my pediatrician about them. I feel like global warming is a hoax, so I asked a scientist about it. I feel like a law is wrong, so I asked a legal expert about it. The next step to take is up to me, but in each case I'm confident I'd be starting with stronger footing that you would be with your process. Furthermore, I can pass that process on to others in a way that is less fragile and more efficient than your process. Ask your pediatrician. Ask your scientist colleague. Ask your law professor. In a world of good faith actors you'd still be reading primary research papers on epidemiology for years before moving to the second topic. In the real world you'd likely skip the necessary steps, risk making misguided decisions, and spreading that misguided decision-making process to others.

leggomylibro 9y ago
Yeah, good point.