4 ms·

> Didn't get the building permit for your kids horse barn? Sue the planning commission members individually. Animal control writes you a citation for Puddles no

by twhb 6y ago

> Didn't get the building permit for your kids horse barn? Sue the planning commission members individually. Animal control writes you a citation for Puddles not being on a leash? Unleash the lawyers. Health department gave your wine bar a bad rating? Sue the inspector personally. That’s exactly the way it should work! If an animal control guy has it in for you and writes you off-leash citations every week while you’re in your own back yard, if the health inspector says he won’t permit black people to stay in business, then you absolutely should be protected by the law. Anything else is plain classism: an implicit assumption that members of a certain class are always in the right, and a requirement to deal with conflict with them not from a position of equal power and rights, but only by hoping to convince them to have mercy. Certainly getting sued over every little thing would be impracticable, too. But that’s also true for citizens. If the laws that protect us aren’t good enough, then the solution is better laws, not to exempt some classes from the law!

brnt 6y ago
It's undemocratic, because unless all lawyers are great and free for all, this path is a matter of money. Now, you may have bought into the libertarian marketing of freedom without democracy, after all so many Americans have, but there are extremely good reasons for why this is problematic, which are actually not that difficult to cobble together with some spare time.
- twhb 6y ago
  Please try to stay civil. In response to your assertion that the courts don’t work: > If the laws that protect us aren’t good enough, then the solution is better laws, not to exempt some classes from the law!
  - johnmaguire 6y ago
    Nothing the parent said was uncivil. (I say this having largely agreed with your original comment.)
    - twhb 6y ago
      Thank you for weighing in, genuinely. I could have misread tone, I’m sorry to brnt if I did. I perceived it as uncivil because it seemed to veer into identity politics, and to belittle my opinions as “not that difficult” to see the error in.
      - brnt 6y ago
        I know critiques of political movements are painted as identity politics, but the opposite is true. Being able to discuss the merits of something like the precise role of the courts should be possible amongst people that abhor the politics of politics.
  - brnt 6y ago
    I was not aware I was uncivil, certainly didn't mean to. Your comment does not address the basic problem with a legislative implementation of freedom: it is undemocratic because the power to fight legal battles will always be constrained by money, therefore giving more weight to those that have more. That makes the legislative or libertarian version of freedom undemocratic. If that interests you, basically any critique of libertarianism will cover it. (Where it gets really interesting is where funding for its promotion come from!) Better laws can be achieved by a democratic process also: you simply vote for candidates that advocate your view. This is democratic because everyone gets the same weight. Naturally, if you have the means, that may seem inefficient, but then that was never the point of democracy, and as far as I am concerned, must never be the point of freedom either.
    - astura 6y ago
      >I was not aware I was uncivil, certainly didn't mean to. You were not being uncivil.
    - twhb 6y ago
      > Your comment does not address the basic problem with a legislative implementation of freedom: it is undemocratic because the power to fight legal battles will always be constrained by money, therefore giving more weight to those that have more. Yes, my comment did not address the US legal system’s wealth bias, except to say that if it needs solving then all citizens should benefit from the solution, not just one class. So I’m not sure why you’re painting me as having one view or another on the solution. What I attacked was different laws for different people. Am I to understand that you believe legal classes are necessary to solve wealth bias? Could you explain the link to me? > the power to fight legal battles will always be constrained by money In the US, under our current system. It’s not a result of democracy, it’s a result of a largely privatized legal system. Also, what exactly are you arguing here? That the power to fight legal battles is bad? > That makes the legislative or libertarian version of freedom undemocratic. Dictatorship is undemocratic. Biased legal systems are flawed, maybe unfair, not undemocratic. Again, I fail to see what this has to do with qualified immunity, or how qualified immunity is more democratic. > Naturally, if you have the means, that may seem inefficient, but then that was never the point of democracy, and as far as I am concerned, must never be the point of freedom either. I haven’t said a word about inefficiency.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Pay (a lawyer) to play is a heck of a lot more democratic than the current system where if you're given crap service at the discretion of the government (as opposed to the bureaucrats doing their job wrong) you need to find a string you can pull to go over the head of whatever bureaucrat screwed you. Money for a lawyer isn't perfect but it is far more accessible to a far broader cross section of the population than the connections required to go around a bureaucrat who has screwed you at their discretion. Furthermore, organizations that screw a lot of people tend to circle the wagons so if you're screwed by the cops knowing a guy who golfs with the chief might not help you, you need to know a guy who golfs with the guy the chief reports to (ditto for the planning department or whatever).
  - brnt 6y ago
    You're probably posting under a throwaway for a reason, but let me just say that none of what you say is in favor of your solution: improving the quality of the democracy you live in would be. Money by definition is not far more accessible to a far broader cross section of the population, your vote is. The problem with requiring connections to go around a bureaucrat who has screwed you at their discretion is that your version of democracy is flawed, you must move it away from that clientellist mode towards something where your vote and procedures are effective.
    - kaibee 6y ago
      > Money by definition is not far more accessible to a far broader cross section of the population Many lawyers will work on contingency, so it kind of is much more accessible.

by twhb 6y ago

brnt 6y ago

It's undemocratic, because unless all lawyers are great and free for all, this path is a matter of money. Now, you may have bought into the libertarian marketing of freedom without democracy, after all so many Americans have, but there are extremely good reasons for why this is problematic, which are actually not that difficult to cobble together with some spare time.

twhb 6y ago
Please try to stay civil. In response to your assertion that the courts don’t work: > If the laws that protect us aren’t good enough, then the solution is better laws, not to exempt some classes from the law!
- johnmaguire 6y ago
  Nothing the parent said was uncivil. (I say this having largely agreed with your original comment.)
  - twhb 6y ago
    Thank you for weighing in, genuinely. I could have misread tone, I’m sorry to brnt if I did. I perceived it as uncivil because it seemed to veer into identity politics, and to belittle my opinions as “not that difficult” to see the error in.
    - brnt 6y ago
      I know critiques of political movements are painted as identity politics, but the opposite is true. Being able to discuss the merits of something like the precise role of the courts should be possible amongst people that abhor the politics of politics.
- brnt 6y ago
  I was not aware I was uncivil, certainly didn't mean to. Your comment does not address the basic problem with a legislative implementation of freedom: it is undemocratic because the power to fight legal battles will always be constrained by money, therefore giving more weight to those that have more. That makes the legislative or libertarian version of freedom undemocratic. If that interests you, basically any critique of libertarianism will cover it. (Where it gets really interesting is where funding for its promotion come from!) Better laws can be achieved by a democratic process also: you simply vote for candidates that advocate your view. This is democratic because everyone gets the same weight. Naturally, if you have the means, that may seem inefficient, but then that was never the point of democracy, and as far as I am concerned, must never be the point of freedom either.
  - astura 6y ago
    >I was not aware I was uncivil, certainly didn't mean to. You were not being uncivil.
  - twhb 6y ago
    > Your comment does not address the basic problem with a legislative implementation of freedom: it is undemocratic because the power to fight legal battles will always be constrained by money, therefore giving more weight to those that have more. Yes, my comment did not address the US legal system’s wealth bias, except to say that if it needs solving then all citizens should benefit from the solution, not just one class. So I’m not sure why you’re painting me as having one view or another on the solution. What I attacked was different laws for different people. Am I to understand that you believe legal classes are necessary to solve wealth bias? Could you explain the link to me? > the power to fight legal battles will always be constrained by money In the US, under our current system. It’s not a result of democracy, it’s a result of a largely privatized legal system. Also, what exactly are you arguing here? That the power to fight legal battles is bad? > That makes the legislative or libertarian version of freedom undemocratic. Dictatorship is undemocratic. Biased legal systems are flawed, maybe unfair, not undemocratic. Again, I fail to see what this has to do with qualified immunity, or how qualified immunity is more democratic. > Naturally, if you have the means, that may seem inefficient, but then that was never the point of democracy, and as far as I am concerned, must never be the point of freedom either. I haven’t said a word about inefficiency.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Pay (a lawyer) to play is a heck of a lot more democratic than the current system where if you're given crap service at the discretion of the government (as opposed to the bureaucrats doing their job wrong) you need to find a string you can pull to go over the head of whatever bureaucrat screwed you. Money for a lawyer isn't perfect but it is far more accessible to a far broader cross section of the population than the connections required to go around a bureaucrat who has screwed you at their discretion. Furthermore, organizations that screw a lot of people tend to circle the wagons so if you're screwed by the cops knowing a guy who golfs with the chief might not help you, you need to know a guy who golfs with the guy the chief reports to (ditto for the planning department or whatever).
- brnt 6y ago
  You're probably posting under a throwaway for a reason, but let me just say that none of what you say is in favor of your solution: improving the quality of the democracy you live in would be. Money by definition is not far more accessible to a far broader cross section of the population, your vote is. The problem with requiring connections to go around a bureaucrat who has screwed you at their discretion is that your version of democracy is flawed, you must move it away from that clientellist mode towards something where your vote and procedures are effective.
  - kaibee 6y ago
    > Money by definition is not far more accessible to a far broader cross section of the population Many lawyers will work on contingency, so it kind of is much more accessible.