3 ms·

I agree with your reasoning, but i strongly disagree with the core assumption that more power structures can solve the issues, as i believe they are the source

I agree with your reasoning, but i strongly disagree with the core assumption that more power structures can solve the issues, as i believe they are the source of most problems you are pointing to. People being in positions of privilege and power is precisely why they can get away with certain crimes. The institutions to build to stop that cannot be centralized like social-democracy advocates, but have to be fully democratic, as in run directly by the people and for the people. Electing our next masters every 4 years (5 where i'm from) is not democracy. Democracy is about seizing power, not about giving it away to soulless sociopaths. If you believe democracy is a term that's been emptied out of meaning, i'd recommend reading some anarchist literature as another take on what democracy can (should?) look like.

lifeisstillgood 5y ago
Yes - I wanted to put something else in there - something about having institutions that can be trusted. In the UK the Police and criminal evidence act (PACE) dramatically changed policing. The old "sweeney" style of policing (brutality and lying in court) was threatened - everyone thought riminals would walk away unless cops could lie to get the conviction they needed - and the cops got better - improved evidence gathering, improved processes and basically raised their game. It's far from perfect - everything from institutional racism to under-staffing - but the institution proved capable of reform. (Admittedly the UK justice system is freaking as years of massive under-fu ding are coming home to roost but that's a different problem - similar to the defund movement in the US) I don't like solutions that say "the people shall watch carefully" because people have other things to do. Unless a guard is paid full time to guard, they start to take their eyes off the ball. But full time paid guards tend to like the people paying them, regulatory capture etc. Having competing guards (regulators) is an interesting idea but that might upset people who don't like paying for one set of guards. In short, it's a hard problem and while democracy as in the will of "all the people" is the well-spring, we cannot expect all the people to pay attention all of the time. We have to pay some of the people all of the time to pay attention - the problem is who guard the guards recursively . Edit: Epstein's crimes were also a peculiar kind - let's say that there are many crimes he could have committed that would have been socially repulsive, and had him reported and ostracised far more quickly than being a rich old man predating on young women. It's on us to change how acceptable that was / is. Edit: it's worth noting i did not think of this straight off - that cultural change is long time coming

lifeisstillgood 5y ago

Yes - I wanted to put something else in there - something about having institutions that can be trusted. In the UK the Police and criminal evidence act (PACE) dramatically changed policing. The old "sweeney" style of policing (brutality and lying in court) was threatened - everyone thought riminals would walk away unless cops could lie to get the conviction they needed - and the cops got better - improved evidence gathering, improved processes and basically raised their game. It's far from perfect - everything from institutional racism to under-staffing - but the institution proved capable of reform. (Admittedly the UK justice system is freaking as years of massive under-fu ding are coming home to roost but that's a different problem - similar to the defund movement in the US) I don't like solutions that say "the people shall watch carefully" because people have other things to do. Unless a guard is paid full time to guard, they start to take their eyes off the ball. But full time paid guards tend to like the people paying them, regulatory capture etc. Having competing guards (regulators) is an interesting idea but that might upset people who don't like paying for one set of guards. In short, it's a hard problem and while democracy as in the will of "all the people" is the well-spring, we cannot expect all the people to pay attention all of the time. We have to pay some of the people all of the time to pay attention - the problem is who guard the guards recursively . Edit: Epstein's crimes were also a peculiar kind - let's say that there are many crimes he could have committed that would have been socially repulsive, and had him reported and ostracised far more quickly than being a rich old man predating on young women. It's on us to change how acceptable that was / is. Edit: it's worth noting i did not think of this straight off - that cultural change is long time coming