4 ms·

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 bet

by 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.
  - brnt 6y ago
    Nowhere did I bring up different laws for difference classes. What I was addressing was that the courts are perhaps not the way one should be supposed to handle the liability of persons in the government. How it should work is that we make and hold elected officials accountable through a functioning democratic process. Biased legal systems are biased towards the affluent. That is an uncontested tell for problematic democratic legitimacy. Because it's difficult to remove that bias entirely, qualified immunity is a tool to defend from wealthy parties. I made the link to libertarianism because this is a stated goal in most of their thinking: courts over democracy, and it's up to you to be able to afford it. Affiliated think tanks are quite lucid as to why [1]: precisely because it stacks the system in favor of the affluent. And that is thus precisely why I'm against any move in the direction of a litigious society, even though I can imagine and recall cases where I'd certainly like to. [1] Some thinking from these property rights supremacists (read: unapologetic in their favoring of 'freedom' over democracy): https://fee.org/articles/freedom-and-democracy-are-different/ https://fee.org/articles/freedom-and-democracy-are-different...

by twhb 6y ago

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.
- brnt 6y ago
  Nowhere did I bring up different laws for difference classes. What I was addressing was that the courts are perhaps not the way one should be supposed to handle the liability of persons in the government. How it should work is that we make and hold elected officials accountable through a functioning democratic process. Biased legal systems are biased towards the affluent. That is an uncontested tell for problematic democratic legitimacy. Because it's difficult to remove that bias entirely, qualified immunity is a tool to defend from wealthy parties. I made the link to libertarianism because this is a stated goal in most of their thinking: courts over democracy, and it's up to you to be able to afford it. Affiliated think tanks are quite lucid as to why [1]: precisely because it stacks the system in favor of the affluent. And that is thus precisely why I'm against any move in the direction of a litigious society, even though I can imagine and recall cases where I'd certainly like to. [1] Some thinking from these property rights supremacists (read: unapologetic in their favoring of 'freedom' over democracy): https://fee.org/articles/freedom-and-democracy-are-different/ https://fee.org/articles/freedom-and-democracy-are-different...