Yeah I think you’re mistaking what a Judges role is. It is merely to uphold the law. The problem in the US is that the role is so politicised that the idea they are legal experts rather than representatives of parties is being lost. They should be representative of society to an extent but ultimately the main qualification is legal experience.
The issue is the law itself and that comes back to the elected politicians in Alabama. It’s a problem of one party rule, and first past the post electoral system plus gerrymandering which means a stagnant political system dominated by one segment of society. The US increasingly looks like a it’s just a large collection of failed democracies.
You don’t specifically need representative judges. You need electoral reform so you have an actual representative democracy, and everything else comes from that.
Judges are “supposed to be” impartial, not representative. That’s one of our many problems. They shouldn’t be conservative or liberal, they should be judges, but people don’t seem to be capable of impartiality, especially ones with any degree of power. Just like men who claim to want to lead really wish to rule. Those who would judge really just want to decide.
The MAKING of the law favors the establishment. I say use the guillotine first, then new laws. Slave master still a slave master now, only the slaves believe they’re free
If anything, it goes to show why legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas and why people need to have the ultimate authority to handle business on their own again. That way, at least, it’s fair, for every man is provided for by either victory, ingenuity, or death.
Okay, I’m genuinely curious, can you elaborate on what you’re advocating? What time in human history do you think we should return to? Tribalism?
I don’t think there has ever been a period of time where there wasn’t some form of social organization. Humans are naturally social and tend to create social groups with rules and enforcement mechanisms. Even if we were to start with a blank slate where there were no governments, companies, tribes, or social groups, humans would quickly recreate them because we have evolved to make use of social structures. We are stronger as a group than individually and groups only survive by having rules and methods of enforcement.
You’re not genuinely curious or here in good faith, you’re derisive, vindictive and guilty of every moral failing you’re about to accuse me of having for not thinking the way you do.
So you do not get the luxury of a debate with me.
Now I said that legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas, and that sadly is not going to change no matter who does what. It’s just the reality of the situation.
So move on from this conversation like you would have told me to had I wasted your time arguing with you about it.
If I came across as derisive, I didn’t mean to. I was genuinely trying to ask what you meant.
I don’t know how it is possible for me to be vindictive when I don’t know you. I don’t want revenge against you. You’ve done nothing to me.
I wasn’t going to accuse you of any kind of moral failing and am not sure why you took my response as a personal attack on your moral character.
You stated that “legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas” and that “people need to have the ultimate authority to handle business on their own again”. That sounds like you are advocating a return to something that existed in the past where people could act autonomously, without regard for the legal system.
I am responding that I don’t think that people have ever had the “ultimate authority to handle business on their own” and am wondering if you can give an explanation of what you are suggesting. I’m arguing that, when presented with anarchy, humans will always tend to create social structures and legal systems.
You didn’t. Simply questioning what somebody thinks the answer is when they make such big assertions should be expected. They should not be commenting if they don’t want to engage in good faith.
Thanks. I almost said the same thing in my reply but decided to wait to see what they said in their response first. It seems they’re just not going to respond.
Their comment history looks pretty combative and rude anyway. I think they just like to attack but can’t defend himself.
Yeah I think you’re mistaking what a Judges role is. It is merely to uphold the law. The problem in the US is that the role is so politicised that the idea they are legal experts rather than representatives of parties is being lost. They should be representative of society to an extent but ultimately the main qualification is legal experience.
The issue is the law itself and that comes back to the elected politicians in Alabama. It’s a problem of one party rule, and first past the post electoral system plus gerrymandering which means a stagnant political system dominated by one segment of society. The US increasingly looks like a it’s just a large collection of failed democracies.
You don’t specifically need representative judges. You need electoral reform so you have an actual representative democracy, and everything else comes from that.
Judges are “supposed to be” impartial, not representative. That’s one of our many problems. They shouldn’t be conservative or liberal, they should be judges, but people don’t seem to be capable of impartiality, especially ones with any degree of power. Just like men who claim to want to lead really wish to rule. Those who would judge really just want to decide.
The MAKING of the law favors the establishment. I say use the guillotine first, then new laws. Slave master still a slave master now, only the slaves believe they’re free
I’m stating it’s the WRONG ROLE law should NOT be upheld in the same way for poor and rich. For uneducated and the wise.
IT SHOULD NOT BE THE SAME favoring the poor and weak.
HOWEVER IT FAVORS THE EXACT OPOSITE.
It shouldn’t favor anybody.
If anything, it goes to show why legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas and why people need to have the ultimate authority to handle business on their own again. That way, at least, it’s fair, for every man is provided for by either victory, ingenuity, or death.
Okay, I’m genuinely curious, can you elaborate on what you’re advocating? What time in human history do you think we should return to? Tribalism?
I don’t think there has ever been a period of time where there wasn’t some form of social organization. Humans are naturally social and tend to create social groups with rules and enforcement mechanisms. Even if we were to start with a blank slate where there were no governments, companies, tribes, or social groups, humans would quickly recreate them because we have evolved to make use of social structures. We are stronger as a group than individually and groups only survive by having rules and methods of enforcement.
You’re not genuinely curious or here in good faith, you’re derisive, vindictive and guilty of every moral failing you’re about to accuse me of having for not thinking the way you do.
So you do not get the luxury of a debate with me.
Now I said that legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas, and that sadly is not going to change no matter who does what. It’s just the reality of the situation.
So move on from this conversation like you would have told me to had I wasted your time arguing with you about it.
If I came across as derisive, I didn’t mean to. I was genuinely trying to ask what you meant.
I don’t know how it is possible for me to be vindictive when I don’t know you. I don’t want revenge against you. You’ve done nothing to me.
I wasn’t going to accuse you of any kind of moral failing and am not sure why you took my response as a personal attack on your moral character.
You stated that “legal systems are plain and simply bad ideas” and that “people need to have the ultimate authority to handle business on their own again”. That sounds like you are advocating a return to something that existed in the past where people could act autonomously, without regard for the legal system.
I am responding that I don’t think that people have ever had the “ultimate authority to handle business on their own” and am wondering if you can give an explanation of what you are suggesting. I’m arguing that, when presented with anarchy, humans will always tend to create social structures and legal systems.
You didn’t. Simply questioning what somebody thinks the answer is when they make such big assertions should be expected. They should not be commenting if they don’t want to engage in good faith.
Thanks. I almost said the same thing in my reply but decided to wait to see what they said in their response first. It seems they’re just not going to respond.
Their comment history looks pretty combative and rude anyway. I think they just like to attack but can’t defend himself.