• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    125 months ago

    I think the reasoning is that otherwise opponents can block political candidates by using the justice system. The opposite of what’s happening now.

    The founding fathers haven’t theorized that this particular situation could happen.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      115 months ago

      The founding fathers haven’t theorized that this particular situation could happen.

      Which you can’t even blame them for, honestly. Who in the 18th century would have thought a huge chunk of the country would want a known despot?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        145 months ago

        Who in the 18th century would have thought a huge chunk of the country would want a known despot?

        Well there is the French 16 th century thinker Etienne de la Boétie who wrote a discourse on voluntary servitude in which he argued that men do tend to simp for tyrants over being free a lot of the time:

        The essay argues that any tyrant remains in power while his subjects grant him that, therefore delegitimizing every form of power. The original freedom of men would be indeed abandoned by society which, once corrupted by the habit, would have preferred the servitude of the courtier to the freedom of the free man, who refuses to be submissive and to obey.

        • swim
          link
          fedilink
          35 months ago

          Spinoza asked “why do people fight for their servitude as if it were their salvation?”

          Fear, and superstition; ideology. Under certain circumstances, the masses want fascism.

          When the left buys in to the game of fear, hatred, passivity, and superstition - a game turbocharged by social media - we become complicit.

          "Instead of politics, we engage in chatter. And it is a sad chatter, whose prevailing form is denunciation. The practice of denunciation debases the multitude. In the place of action, it accepts hatred, which merely externalizes the sadness of passivity; in the place of agency, it accepts fear, and pleads for security; in place of the collective democratic subject, it accepts the superstitious mob.

          Superstitious mobs can only serve tyrants, as Spinoza knew well. We now face a new theocracy of our own making, one which through the chatter of social media decomposes our powers and makes politics impossible."

          https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/3844-why-do-people-fight-for-their-servitude-as-if-it-were-their-salvation

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            Thanks. I love me some Spinoza. I just wished they put a citation as to where to find this quote.

            • swim
              link
              fedilink
              25 months ago

              The Spinoza quote? As far as I understand it, it could actually be Deleuze paraphrasing Spinoza, perhaps Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, or maybe better said as “Deleuze’ translation of Spinoza.”

                • swim
                  link
                  fedilink
                  25 months ago

                  Yes! Thank you for the interesting look at Étienne de La Boétie. Deleuze wrote Spinoza: Practical Philosophy and it’s pretty cool.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -15 months ago

      That’s silly, if you’re powerful enough to do that, you can just imprison them. No one probably thought about this, that’s all

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s not that silly if law enforcement officials and judges are elected, like how they are in the American system. Ideally the court/justice system is entirely loose from politics.

        Also don’t forget that the founding fathers did all partake in sedition, many of them not really having a clear slate whatsoever.

        But yeah this particular instance hasn’t crossed their minds at all.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          My argument being if you can convict a person through the judges you influenced, you can sentence them to imprisonment similarly as well. So it’s a moot point.