5 ms·

This is precisely why as a law-and-order type, I don’t care about this particular incident. A rookie gangster shot a high-tier gangster — why is that a me prob

This is precisely why as a law-and-order type, I don’t care about this particular incident. A rookie gangster shot a high-tier gangster — why is that a me problem? Gang-on-gang violence is a daily occurrence.

wqaatwt 1y ago
Hypothetically if laws lose their legitimacy because nobody is willing to enforce them (at least some people have that perception) and the political system is designed in such a way as to make any meaningful change near impossible what is there left to do?
- somenameforme 1y ago
  And more generally the fundamental reason we agree to operate under laws is because these laws are expected to improve society as a whole. But if those laws instead start enabling and protecting bad behavior then they're doing the exact opposite. It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the law by quite some time. For the obvious extreme there - slavery was completely legal. Society began to believe that such a thing was no longer fit for society, and consequently acting against it, long before it was outlawed.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    The way to change this is to build consensus and update the law, not go out and shoot whoever you disagree with.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      There are pretty much 0 people who think healthcare insurance providers should be intentionally engaging in delay, deny, defend as a means of maximizing profit. Passing a law against stands essentially 0 chance of happening. If it was passed, it would intentionally have loopholes aplenty buried in a hundred page document that essentially 0 people, including those who wrote it, could understand. Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        Then we need to fix it. Going out and shooting whoever you dont like moves us further from this goal, not closer. People broadly agree that they dont like the status quo. They dont agree on what would be better. You cant have change without direction and detail.
        somenameforme 1y ago
        This isn't the issue. You could get easily get the overwhelming majority of society to agree 'let's criminalize unjustified denials with criminal penalties for the executives of healthcare companies who violate such' and it's simply not going to happen. A handful of corporations' "lobbying" easily trumps the opinion of society. And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either republican or democrat (with independents being the largest 'party' by far), yet lo and behold like 99.9% of politicians at all levels, high and low, are republican or democrat, with basically no independent representation because the system makes it unreasonably difficult to select an alternative. This is further confounded by an utterly worthless media system that further works to entrench the political establishment, and much more.
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
        I dont think it is that easy to define "unjustified denials". People might agree on a vibe, but not detail. What would a bill look like? Regarding the party and representational system, I agree there is a lot of dysfunction. Same problem. Nobody can agree on alternatives. Even ranked choice, which I think is the tiniest step in the right direction is highly controversial. Ideas like expanding the house to 30,000 representatives [1], seem like a fantasy. People hate change more than the status quo. Regarding the media environment, the consumer is the problem. As long as people prefer and seek out garbage, there is no possible solution. [1] https://thirty-thousand.org/ https://thirty-thousand.org/
        somenameforme 1y ago
        An unjustified denial is obviously a denial that should not have been denied by the terms of your agreement with the insurance company. And we should also add delays and other anti-payment 'strategies' as criminal offenses as well. And as such behaviors would now be criminal in nature, exact offenses would determined by a jury of our peers. It's obviously not people hating change. People want these things, and many others to change. It's a completely broken political system that is happy to change, but only when it benefits corporations or political, especially geopolitical, interests. Ranked choice won't do anything. Australia has one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the world, and they have both universal voting, obviously 'Australian voting', and even a proportionally elected Senate.
    - hayst4ck 1y ago
      This is a false dichotomy. The problem with your judgement is that it presumes that law is a limit rather than weapon, that it protects rather than attacks, and that the law can interpret and enforce itself. This is a form of privilege because you grew up under conditions where those were mostly true because those in power generally followed the law, so you've never had to question many of your base assumptions about what law is, how it is enforced, or what legitimacy/illegitimacy means. Decisions made have mostly been decisions you can tolerate even if you disagree. You've probably never taken the time to understand America's founding philosophy, which states there is truth that supersedes law, specifically that rights are even more fundamental than law and completely supersede it. You owe yourself a reading of the declaration of independence. You likely haven't been on the receiving end of blatantly unjust law or "law" enforcement nor do you likely identify with those who have been on the receiving end. You've probably never had to bribe a police officer, something that happens on this planet. You probably haven't experienced law enforcers robbing you of your dignity with the force of courts behind them. You've probably never been subject to law that says you are someone else's property. Unfortunately for your argument, law can be used to consolidate power to update the law. You can update the law so that only you are able to update the law. When the system of legitimacy for the use of force becomes a tool for power consolidation, "consensus" becomes irrelevant. Consent becomes irrelevant. This is in many ways communicated by OP's managed democracy. What happens when you disagree with management? What does it mean for democracy to be managed. It obviously is because politicians ask for money, not time, not votes, but money. That implies that those with money can influence election results loosely proportional to their money. You should really read about political philosophy, specifically the "state of nature" which even conservative NYT columnist David Brooks has said we are in. Generally when people say that it means that we are effectively lawless and subject only to systems of power. There is no law to follow because it is arbitrary and unpredictable or everything is criminalized to the point where everyone is guilty allowing enforcement to punish who they choose while technically enforcing the law. How do you get people who have consolidated systems of power to the negotiating table? How should Ukraine get Russia to the negotiating table? Russia is claiming it is Ukraine's government and therefore Ukrainians are "protected" by Russian law. Gazans are "protected" by Israeli law too. China claims that it's laws "protect" Hong Kong citizens and Taiwanese. Their militaries are technically acting as police if you accept their framing. Multiple second in commands of the US military have said trump is trying to divide and conquer America. Think about that. Think about what it means for a president to divide the country. It means that they see themselves as president of only half of the people. What does that mean for the other half, do they actually have a government? Are they protected by law? This country was founded on the philosophy of John Locke, and it's not clear you've read it or understand it, because it doesn't say shoot whoever you disagree with (although that is something that happens in the state of nature), but it also doesn't rely on magical thinking about "building consensus to update the law" which is something that makes sense to think about under a constitutional democratic government, but doesn't make any sense in a monarchy or government aspiring to have a "unitary executive."

wqaatwt 1y ago

Hypothetically if laws lose their legitimacy because nobody is willing to enforce them (at least some people have that perception) and the political system is designed in such a way as to make any meaningful change near impossible what is there left to do?

somenameforme 1y ago
And more generally the fundamental reason we agree to operate under laws is because these laws are expected to improve society as a whole. But if those laws instead start enabling and protecting bad behavior then they're doing the exact opposite. It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the law by quite some time. For the obvious extreme there - slavery was completely legal. Society began to believe that such a thing was no longer fit for society, and consequently acting against it, long before it was outlawed.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  The way to change this is to build consensus and update the law, not go out and shoot whoever you disagree with.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    There are pretty much 0 people who think healthcare insurance providers should be intentionally engaging in delay, deny, defend as a means of maximizing profit. Passing a law against stands essentially 0 chance of happening. If it was passed, it would intentionally have loopholes aplenty buried in a hundred page document that essentially 0 people, including those who wrote it, could understand. Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      Then we need to fix it. Going out and shooting whoever you dont like moves us further from this goal, not closer. People broadly agree that they dont like the status quo. They dont agree on what would be better. You cant have change without direction and detail.
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        This isn't the issue. You could get easily get the overwhelming majority of society to agree 'let's criminalize unjustified denials with criminal penalties for the executives of healthcare companies who violate such' and it's simply not going to happen. A handful of corporations' "lobbying" easily trumps the opinion of society. And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either republican or democrat (with independents being the largest 'party' by far), yet lo and behold like 99.9% of politicians at all levels, high and low, are republican or democrat, with basically no independent representation because the system makes it unreasonably difficult to select an alternative. This is further confounded by an utterly worthless media system that further works to entrench the political establishment, and much more.
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
        I dont think it is that easy to define "unjustified denials". People might agree on a vibe, but not detail. What would a bill look like? Regarding the party and representational system, I agree there is a lot of dysfunction. Same problem. Nobody can agree on alternatives. Even ranked choice, which I think is the tiniest step in the right direction is highly controversial. Ideas like expanding the house to 30,000 representatives [1], seem like a fantasy. People hate change more than the status quo. Regarding the media environment, the consumer is the problem. As long as people prefer and seek out garbage, there is no possible solution. [1] https://thirty-thousand.org/ https://thirty-thousand.org/
        somenameforme 1y ago
        An unjustified denial is obviously a denial that should not have been denied by the terms of your agreement with the insurance company. And we should also add delays and other anti-payment 'strategies' as criminal offenses as well. And as such behaviors would now be criminal in nature, exact offenses would determined by a jury of our peers. It's obviously not people hating change. People want these things, and many others to change. It's a completely broken political system that is happy to change, but only when it benefits corporations or political, especially geopolitical, interests. Ranked choice won't do anything. Australia has one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the world, and they have both universal voting, obviously 'Australian voting', and even a proportionally elected Senate.
  - hayst4ck 1y ago
    This is a false dichotomy. The problem with your judgement is that it presumes that law is a limit rather than weapon, that it protects rather than attacks, and that the law can interpret and enforce itself. This is a form of privilege because you grew up under conditions where those were mostly true because those in power generally followed the law, so you've never had to question many of your base assumptions about what law is, how it is enforced, or what legitimacy/illegitimacy means. Decisions made have mostly been decisions you can tolerate even if you disagree. You've probably never taken the time to understand America's founding philosophy, which states there is truth that supersedes law, specifically that rights are even more fundamental than law and completely supersede it. You owe yourself a reading of the declaration of independence. You likely haven't been on the receiving end of blatantly unjust law or "law" enforcement nor do you likely identify with those who have been on the receiving end. You've probably never had to bribe a police officer, something that happens on this planet. You probably haven't experienced law enforcers robbing you of your dignity with the force of courts behind them. You've probably never been subject to law that says you are someone else's property. Unfortunately for your argument, law can be used to consolidate power to update the law. You can update the law so that only you are able to update the law. When the system of legitimacy for the use of force becomes a tool for power consolidation, "consensus" becomes irrelevant. Consent becomes irrelevant. This is in many ways communicated by OP's managed democracy. What happens when you disagree with management? What does it mean for democracy to be managed. It obviously is because politicians ask for money, not time, not votes, but money. That implies that those with money can influence election results loosely proportional to their money. You should really read about political philosophy, specifically the "state of nature" which even conservative NYT columnist David Brooks has said we are in. Generally when people say that it means that we are effectively lawless and subject only to systems of power. There is no law to follow because it is arbitrary and unpredictable or everything is criminalized to the point where everyone is guilty allowing enforcement to punish who they choose while technically enforcing the law. How do you get people who have consolidated systems of power to the negotiating table? How should Ukraine get Russia to the negotiating table? Russia is claiming it is Ukraine's government and therefore Ukrainians are "protected" by Russian law. Gazans are "protected" by Israeli law too. China claims that it's laws "protect" Hong Kong citizens and Taiwanese. Their militaries are technically acting as police if you accept their framing. Multiple second in commands of the US military have said trump is trying to divide and conquer America. Think about that. Think about what it means for a president to divide the country. It means that they see themselves as president of only half of the people. What does that mean for the other half, do they actually have a government? Are they protected by law? This country was founded on the philosophy of John Locke, and it's not clear you've read it or understand it, because it doesn't say shoot whoever you disagree with (although that is something that happens in the state of nature), but it also doesn't rely on magical thinking about "building consensus to update the law" which is something that makes sense to think about under a constitutional democratic government, but doesn't make any sense in a monarchy or government aspiring to have a "unitary executive."