5 ms·

Private legal system with non-profit counsel. Would be interesting to try it again, but no state would ever revert that kind of power to its citizens.

HeckFeck 3y ago
Quite. There is something deeply appealing in making the law much more immediate and accessible to the commons. The labyrinthine system we have today makes me wonder how many people don't bother even when there are genuine disputes and injustices everywhere.
SanderNL 3y ago
I think this is romanticizing the past a bit. I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. There is to my knowledge no historical precedent for the amount of practical power the common citizenry has over the powerful classes today.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  I think you're romanticizing the present. There is no law that results in monotonic increase in "goodness" of social systems over time. It can appear that way if you look at the past few hundred or thousand years because incredible technological advances do tend to result in more, but that can also mask inequality and injustice on the fringes. Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt. > I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. I wouldn't hesitate to call it real power. You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not. There's a lot of power between cockroach and omnipotent. > Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you. " It can also mean countless other things. Like that government has to stop excessive surveillance. Cannot take your home away to build a road. Or has to lift a regulation for your buisness, ... Not every government activity is money redistribution.
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      Sounds like the kind of "win" where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance and the government promises the government it will and then it doesn't, and it also starts spying on the parts of the government that tried to stop it so it can bring them to heel. You can change a few roads around from time to time, resulting in the government taking more of your money to build road that takes a longer route so you and your fellow plebs have to commute 10 minutes longer. That's not the "real" power previous poster was talking about, going up against the ruling class.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? If nothing, what kind of political system do you propose? And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not.
        throwawaylinux 3y ago
        > You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? Strange. > If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? Yes. > And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not. I can't understand what you mean.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > There is to my knowledge no historical precedent for the amount of practical power the common citizenry has over the powerful classes today. To be fair ancient Athens even elected most public official using a lottery system so that the rich/powerful would be able to monopolize the power because they had time/money to campaign and extensive client networks. Multiple other societies had they "eat the rich" moments as well it's just the it wasn't sustainable, almost immediately after the last ruling class was removed a new one (just as corrupt) arose.
- kahnclusions 3y ago
  It’s 100% romanticising the past. Threads like this always make it painfully obvious how logically-minded and clever tech folks (HN crowd) are really clueless about anything outside their area of expertise.
  - zer0-c00l 3y ago
    “logically-minded and clever tech folks” is even too generous. Keep in mind the only barrier to entry to post here is the ability to write moderately complete sentences.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    Aahaha, "nobody may have an opinion about how they are governed, or an interest in thinking about different possibilities unless they are 'experts'". That's rich. Exactly what some kind of self-proclaimed "government expert" would say, thank you for that.
    - ffhhttt 3y ago
      I’m not sure there is anything wrong with having an opinion it’s just a lot of the time any post related to economics/history/other non tech subjects is full of overconfident people offering semi-absurd solutions (some of which have even been tried but they are obviously not aware of that).
      - throwawaylinux 3y ago
        > Private legal system with non-profit counsel. Would be interesting to try it again, but no state would ever revert that kind of power to its citizens. "Over-confident" "solution" This is just too much, it's satire right? Really good if it is. Nothing more fragile and angry than an "expert" who has their proclamations challenged, or an indoctrinated follower who is threatened with scary opinions.
        ffhhttt 3y ago
        It was satire? Makes sense now.. The Roman legal system was extremely arbitrary and highly dysfunctional by modern standard. Why transporting some random feature of it (which contributed to it being such) to the modern world would ever be a good idea? > revert that kind of power to its citizens. It think it’s the inverse and would significantly decrease the “power” a random person has due to obvious reasons. > fragile and angry I’m neither angry or fragile. Why would you even use these words? I just shared my observation, that’s it. > indoctrinated That generally comments which include this word tend to be at least mildly deranged is another thing I noticed here as well.

HeckFeck 3y ago

Quite. There is something deeply appealing in making the law much more immediate and accessible to the commons. The labyrinthine system we have today makes me wonder how many people don't bother even when there are genuine disputes and injustices everywhere.

SanderNL 3y ago

I think this is romanticizing the past a bit. I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. There is to my knowledge no historical precedent for the amount of practical power the common citizenry has over the powerful classes today.

throwawaylinux 3y ago
I think you're romanticizing the present. There is no law that results in monotonic increase in "goodness" of social systems over time. It can appear that way if you look at the past few hundred or thousand years because incredible technological advances do tend to result in more, but that can also mask inequality and injustice on the fringes. Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt. > I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. I wouldn't hesitate to call it real power. You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not. There's a lot of power between cockroach and omnipotent. > Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you. " It can also mean countless other things. Like that government has to stop excessive surveillance. Cannot take your home away to build a road. Or has to lift a regulation for your buisness, ... Not every government activity is money redistribution.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    Sounds like the kind of "win" where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance and the government promises the government it will and then it doesn't, and it also starts spying on the parts of the government that tried to stop it so it can bring them to heel. You can change a few roads around from time to time, resulting in the government taking more of your money to build road that takes a longer route so you and your fellow plebs have to commute 10 minutes longer. That's not the "real" power previous poster was talking about, going up against the ruling class.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? If nothing, what kind of political system do you propose? And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not.
      - throwawaylinux 3y ago
        > You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? Strange. > If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? Yes. > And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not. I can't understand what you mean.
qwytw 3y ago
> There is to my knowledge no historical precedent for the amount of practical power the common citizenry has over the powerful classes today. To be fair ancient Athens even elected most public official using a lottery system so that the rich/powerful would be able to monopolize the power because they had time/money to campaign and extensive client networks. Multiple other societies had they "eat the rich" moments as well it's just the it wasn't sustainable, almost immediately after the last ruling class was removed a new one (just as corrupt) arose.
kahnclusions 3y ago
It’s 100% romanticising the past. Threads like this always make it painfully obvious how logically-minded and clever tech folks (HN crowd) are really clueless about anything outside their area of expertise.
- zer0-c00l 3y ago
  “logically-minded and clever tech folks” is even too generous. Keep in mind the only barrier to entry to post here is the ability to write moderately complete sentences.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  Aahaha, "nobody may have an opinion about how they are governed, or an interest in thinking about different possibilities unless they are 'experts'". That's rich. Exactly what some kind of self-proclaimed "government expert" would say, thank you for that.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    I’m not sure there is anything wrong with having an opinion it’s just a lot of the time any post related to economics/history/other non tech subjects is full of overconfident people offering semi-absurd solutions (some of which have even been tried but they are obviously not aware of that).
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      > Private legal system with non-profit counsel. Would be interesting to try it again, but no state would ever revert that kind of power to its citizens. "Over-confident" "solution" This is just too much, it's satire right? Really good if it is. Nothing more fragile and angry than an "expert" who has their proclamations challenged, or an indoctrinated follower who is threatened with scary opinions.
      - ffhhttt 3y ago
        It was satire? Makes sense now.. The Roman legal system was extremely arbitrary and highly dysfunctional by modern standard. Why transporting some random feature of it (which contributed to it being such) to the modern world would ever be a good idea? > revert that kind of power to its citizens. It think it’s the inverse and would significantly decrease the “power” a random person has due to obvious reasons. > fragile and angry I’m neither angry or fragile. Why would you even use these words? I just shared my observation, that’s it. > indoctrinated That generally comments which include this word tend to be at least mildly deranged is another thing I noticed here as well.