37 ms·

the government doesnt have any money of its own - thats our money. to rephrase: the government does something the courts rule as wrong, so they take money from

the government doesnt have any money of its own - thats our money. to rephrase: the government does something the courts rule as wrong, so they take money from us to pay for their mistakes. the injured party clearly deserves recompense, but i feel like we can do better than this.

adamsea 6y ago
I agree with you that it's our money, and, in the same vein, it's also our government : ). So, IMHO one answer to your question is we can engage in activism to motivate our government to change our laws and regulations to prevent a repeat of the violation in question, and vote for representatives who also would support such things. Like, once you find a bug in production, you fix it, and ideally then do an analysis of how it got there and what practices might be worth changing and maybe you also write a test in case someone slips up in the future.
FpUser 6y ago
When government agents who abuse people's rights would be personally punished (fat chance) we might suddenly find a lot less laws and rules violated.
- goodluckchuck 6y ago
  They are if they do it on purpose / know that its illegal, which is how it should be.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    Yeah sure. It happens sometimes but rarely. Mostly the investigations being stonewalled, facts hidden/ignored etc/etc
nobody9999 6y ago
>the government doesnt have any money of its own - thats our money. to rephrase: the government does something the courts rule as wrong, so they take money from us to pay for their mistakes. the injured party clearly deserves recompense, but i feel like we can do better than this. I see and understand your perspective. You're right, "government" does do things that, prospectively, contemporaneously and/or retrospectively are inappropriate, unfair and/or just plain bad/stupid. That said, at least in the United States, "government" isn't some foreign agency or third party. Government is us. All of us, through those we select as representatives in our town, county, state and federal governments. We can (and, in my estimation, should) do better. But I believe it's incorrect to place blame on some nebulous "government", as if it's not us Americans. A good way to start "doing better" would be to remove the perverse incentives that make money the primary currency of our political system. Independent, non-partisan creation of local/state/federal election districts is a good idea too. That's a huge problem. For example[0], in the 2018 elections, 53% of Wisconsinites voted for Democratic state (assembly and senate) candidates, but those candidates only won 36% of seats in those bodies. That's just one example. I'm not singling out any particular party, there certainly are states with Democratic majorities that have created district maps that favor their candidates too. In any case, I agree with OP, but just wanted to point out that, at least in the US (and many other places too), we are the government, not downtrodden serfs crushed under the heel of some other group. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-l... Edit: Fixed typographical error and redundant wording.
- harimau777 6y ago
  That seems like a catch 22. In order to elect people that represent us we need to fix the system (e.g. by fixing redistricting), but in order to fix the system we need to elect people that represent us. For that reason, I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    > That seems like a catch 22. In order to elect people that represent us we need to fix the system (e.g. by fixing redistricting), but in order to fix the system we need to elect people that represent us. >For that reason, I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way. There are lots of ways to "fix" the system. Currently 21 states have non-partisan or bi-partisan redistricting regimes[0], so it's certainly possible to do so, either via a state ballot measure[1] (26 states have those) or a legislative process. Obviously, states without ballot measures are a hard sell, especially in state legislatures that have strong majorities of one of the major parties. But like I said, "the government is us." And that means voting, and not just in presidential election years -- since elections are regulated on the state and county levels. Which means two things: 1. Your vote in local/state elections not only gives your vote more weight, it's also easier to change both our representatives and the laws they pass than in Federal elections; 2. A smaller electorate (for mayor, county executive, state assemblyperson/senator) that not only votes, but makes their opinions and ideas clear as to the sort of government they favor can have a strong impact on how elections (including Federal elections and redistricting) are planned and executed in their state. That voter turnout for general elections in presidential election years is usually around 55-60%[2] (although this year was a bit higher), but primary turnout is generally significantly lower. In non-presidential election years, turnout is generally much lower, even though local and state elections generally have a much bigger effect on governance in states and localities. As such, if you want change in your government, it's easier than you think because state and local elections are the ones where most of the change we need would come. What's more, most people would agree that fairer redistricting and a smaller but still huge number would agree that reducing the influence of money in elections (via public funding, shortening the time for campaigns, etc.) are important to the health of our political system and (small 'd') democracy. If you just throw up your hands and say why bother? "I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way," you're not making things better -- by not voting or advocating for positive change, you're implicitly endorsing the status quo. If you aren't clear as to how that could work, here are a few resources: "Take Back Your Government" by Robert Heinlein http://www.baen.com/Chapters/0671721577/0671721577.htm http://www.baen.com/Chapters/0671721577/0671721577.htm Learn about Ranked Choice Voting. A dozen states and localities have/are about to implement it. It can give more voices a real chance and help to break the stranglehold of the two major parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) https://www.fairvote.org/ranked_choice_voting https://www.fairvote.org/ranked_choice_voting Advocate/vote for public funding of elections: 14 states have already adopted this in some form, and we need more of it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections#In_t... https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/public-financing-of-campaigns-overview.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/public... Most of all, get out there and vote! The government is us and reflects the desires and preferences of those who vote. Not just every four years, not just in general elections. Every. Single. Election. Every. Single. Time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission [1] https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum [2] http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present
paxys 6y ago
If government money is our money then the government is, by extension, us. So the injured party is suing you and me for what we did to them, and getting our money in compensation.
solidsnack9000 6y ago
This ruling allows the officers themselves to brought to court, as private persons.

adamsea 6y ago

I agree with you that it's our money, and, in the same vein, it's also our government : ). So, IMHO one answer to your question is we can engage in activism to motivate our government to change our laws and regulations to prevent a repeat of the violation in question, and vote for representatives who also would support such things. Like, once you find a bug in production, you fix it, and ideally then do an analysis of how it got there and what practices might be worth changing and maybe you also write a test in case someone slips up in the future.

FpUser 6y ago

When government agents who abuse people's rights would be personally punished (fat chance) we might suddenly find a lot less laws and rules violated.

goodluckchuck 6y ago
They are if they do it on purpose / know that its illegal, which is how it should be.
- FpUser 6y ago
  Yeah sure. It happens sometimes but rarely. Mostly the investigations being stonewalled, facts hidden/ignored etc/etc

nobody9999 6y ago

>the government doesnt have any money of its own - thats our money. to rephrase: the government does something the courts rule as wrong, so they take money from us to pay for their mistakes. the injured party clearly deserves recompense, but i feel like we can do better than this. I see and understand your perspective. You're right, "government" does do things that, prospectively, contemporaneously and/or retrospectively are inappropriate, unfair and/or just plain bad/stupid. That said, at least in the United States, "government" isn't some foreign agency or third party. Government is us. All of us, through those we select as representatives in our town, county, state and federal governments. We can (and, in my estimation, should) do better. But I believe it's incorrect to place blame on some nebulous "government", as if it's not us Americans. A good way to start "doing better" would be to remove the perverse incentives that make money the primary currency of our political system. Independent, non-partisan creation of local/state/federal election districts is a good idea too. That's a huge problem. For example[0], in the 2018 elections, 53% of Wisconsinites voted for Democratic state (assembly and senate) candidates, but those candidates only won 36% of seats in those bodies. That's just one example. I'm not singling out any particular party, there certainly are states with Democratic majorities that have created district maps that favor their candidates too. In any case, I agree with OP, but just wanted to point out that, at least in the US (and many other places too), we are the government, not downtrodden serfs crushed under the heel of some other group. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-l... Edit: Fixed typographical error and redundant wording.

harimau777 6y ago
That seems like a catch 22. In order to elect people that represent us we need to fix the system (e.g. by fixing redistricting), but in order to fix the system we need to elect people that represent us. For that reason, I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  > That seems like a catch 22. In order to elect people that represent us we need to fix the system (e.g. by fixing redistricting), but in order to fix the system we need to elect people that represent us. >For that reason, I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way. There are lots of ways to "fix" the system. Currently 21 states have non-partisan or bi-partisan redistricting regimes[0], so it's certainly possible to do so, either via a state ballot measure[1] (26 states have those) or a legislative process. Obviously, states without ballot measures are a hard sell, especially in state legislatures that have strong majorities of one of the major parties. But like I said, "the government is us." And that means voting, and not just in presidential election years -- since elections are regulated on the state and county levels. Which means two things: 1. Your vote in local/state elections not only gives your vote more weight, it's also easier to change both our representatives and the laws they pass than in Federal elections; 2. A smaller electorate (for mayor, county executive, state assemblyperson/senator) that not only votes, but makes their opinions and ideas clear as to the sort of government they favor can have a strong impact on how elections (including Federal elections and redistricting) are planned and executed in their state. That voter turnout for general elections in presidential election years is usually around 55-60%[2] (although this year was a bit higher), but primary turnout is generally significantly lower. In non-presidential election years, turnout is generally much lower, even though local and state elections generally have a much bigger effect on governance in states and localities. As such, if you want change in your government, it's easier than you think because state and local elections are the ones where most of the change we need would come. What's more, most people would agree that fairer redistricting and a smaller but still huge number would agree that reducing the influence of money in elections (via public funding, shortening the time for campaigns, etc.) are important to the health of our political system and (small 'd') democracy. If you just throw up your hands and say why bother? "I don't think that the government really represents us in any meaningful way," you're not making things better -- by not voting or advocating for positive change, you're implicitly endorsing the status quo. If you aren't clear as to how that could work, here are a few resources: "Take Back Your Government" by Robert Heinlein http://www.baen.com/Chapters/0671721577/0671721577.htm http://www.baen.com/Chapters/0671721577/0671721577.htm Learn about Ranked Choice Voting. A dozen states and localities have/are about to implement it. It can give more voices a real chance and help to break the stranglehold of the two major parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) https://www.fairvote.org/ranked_choice_voting https://www.fairvote.org/ranked_choice_voting Advocate/vote for public funding of elections: 14 states have already adopted this in some form, and we need more of it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections#In_t... https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/public-financing-of-campaigns-overview.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/public... Most of all, get out there and vote! The government is us and reflects the desires and preferences of those who vote. Not just every four years, not just in general elections. Every. Single. Election. Every. Single. Time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission [1] https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum [2] http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present

paxys 6y ago

If government money is our money then the government is, by extension, us. So the injured party is suing you and me for what we did to them, and getting our money in compensation.

solidsnack9000 6y ago

This ruling allows the officers themselves to brought to court, as private persons.