4 ms·

It's not very constructive, is it? "It's human nature to be exploited" Then again, not a lot seem to happen when pointing at short-comings or issues of priorit

by ansc 5y ago

It's not very constructive, is it? "It's human nature to be exploited" Then again, not a lot seem to happen when pointing at short-comings or issues of prioritizing profit and growth above all else in society either.

jimbokun 5y ago
This view point was the basis of the US Constitution. Do not trust any central power. Pit them against each other to limit what they can do. Enumerate the rights of the people that government can not infringe. The whole thing is based on the assumption that human nature tends to lead to exploitation of others, and build in safeguards against it.
jklinger410 5y ago
It is very constructive because it points to the actual root of the problem so we can begin to solve it. Laws and regulation that prevent cronyism are the solution.
- lbriner 5y ago
  Except humans, business and politics are far too complex to encapsulate in laws, at least in their current format. Look at a "simple" case in the news today. Several men who were abused in the 1970s have lost their case against Manchester City Football club who they say were responsible for the "scout" who abused them. If it was really simple, there would be no case. However, the Judge rules that at the time of the abuse, the man (who is currently in prison) was not officially a member of Man City staff so they are not liable vicariously for his actions. I think something that is lacking in the UK at least, is more like a Charter for Society. What is it that we accept and don't accept. It would be much easier in Court if a ruling is made not just on the letter of a law that might not have thought of the specific scenario, not on common law of something that was close enough to this case but on whether it violates the charter. Don't know, just a thought.
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    > It would be much easier in Court if a ruling is made not just on the letter of a law that might not have thought of the specific scenario, not on common law of something that was close enough to this case but on whether it violates the charter. What do you mean by Charter for Society? A Constitution? Doesn't this just devolve to the same problem? If the law doesn't address a specific scenario, what makes you think the charter will?
    - lbriner 5y ago
      I'm just thinking there are times where there is a violent assault, for example, perhaps the person has previous and is basically a horrible person who was winding someone up or just doing stuff that most people would be disgusted with. Only some of that is easy to capture in law. If a constitution/charter had something like "Our society does not accept people who are unecessarily aggressive or quick to get violent", then the perpetrator doesn't get away with it because they didn't actually hurt someone or reach the burden for proving "fear of violence" needed for assault. Don't know. Probably not realistic but at least then a society could know how infrastructure, government and public services are directed; people who want to immigrate can see clearly that e.g. "We respect the rule of law and property" so that they don't think it is OK to not pay tax, to not insure their car etc; and also for people who are a pain because they are just selfish and do things that rub people up the wrong way, "we are mindful that the community is more important than the individual and the community can decide that they don't like what you are doing even if it isn't illegal"
      - jimbokun 5y ago
        > Only some of that is easy to capture in law. I think these kinds of things are captured in law all the time. Giving judges recommended sentencing guidelines but with leeway for discretion in a specific case. Distinguishing between assault and aggravated assault and battery, murder and manslaughter, etc.
amtamt 5y ago
Other way around... "It's human nature to exploit". Be it the nature or other species or other humans. Of course not everyone is exploiting at the same level... Corporates and Governments are the apex predators in this exploitation chain.

by ansc 5y ago

jimbokun 5y ago

This view point was the basis of the US Constitution. Do not trust any central power. Pit them against each other to limit what they can do. Enumerate the rights of the people that government can not infringe. The whole thing is based on the assumption that human nature tends to lead to exploitation of others, and build in safeguards against it.

jklinger410 5y ago

It is very constructive because it points to the actual root of the problem so we can begin to solve it. Laws and regulation that prevent cronyism are the solution.

lbriner 5y ago
Except humans, business and politics are far too complex to encapsulate in laws, at least in their current format. Look at a "simple" case in the news today. Several men who were abused in the 1970s have lost their case against Manchester City Football club who they say were responsible for the "scout" who abused them. If it was really simple, there would be no case. However, the Judge rules that at the time of the abuse, the man (who is currently in prison) was not officially a member of Man City staff so they are not liable vicariously for his actions. I think something that is lacking in the UK at least, is more like a Charter for Society. What is it that we accept and don't accept. It would be much easier in Court if a ruling is made not just on the letter of a law that might not have thought of the specific scenario, not on common law of something that was close enough to this case but on whether it violates the charter. Don't know, just a thought.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  > It would be much easier in Court if a ruling is made not just on the letter of a law that might not have thought of the specific scenario, not on common law of something that was close enough to this case but on whether it violates the charter. What do you mean by Charter for Society? A Constitution? Doesn't this just devolve to the same problem? If the law doesn't address a specific scenario, what makes you think the charter will?
  - lbriner 5y ago
    I'm just thinking there are times where there is a violent assault, for example, perhaps the person has previous and is basically a horrible person who was winding someone up or just doing stuff that most people would be disgusted with. Only some of that is easy to capture in law. If a constitution/charter had something like "Our society does not accept people who are unecessarily aggressive or quick to get violent", then the perpetrator doesn't get away with it because they didn't actually hurt someone or reach the burden for proving "fear of violence" needed for assault. Don't know. Probably not realistic but at least then a society could know how infrastructure, government and public services are directed; people who want to immigrate can see clearly that e.g. "We respect the rule of law and property" so that they don't think it is OK to not pay tax, to not insure their car etc; and also for people who are a pain because they are just selfish and do things that rub people up the wrong way, "we are mindful that the community is more important than the individual and the community can decide that they don't like what you are doing even if it isn't illegal"
    - jimbokun 5y ago
      > Only some of that is easy to capture in law. I think these kinds of things are captured in law all the time. Giving judges recommended sentencing guidelines but with leeway for discretion in a specific case. Distinguishing between assault and aggravated assault and battery, murder and manslaughter, etc.

amtamt 5y ago

Other way around... "It's human nature to exploit". Be it the nature or other species or other humans. Of course not everyone is exploiting at the same level... Corporates and Governments are the apex predators in this exploitation chain.