Swiss chees model of accident tyranny prevention
Governments are imperfect systems, you wanna have redundancies over redundancies. What you are saying is kinda like “I don’t think we need separation of power, we just need to get the laws just right so noone can break their election promises and abuse their power”.
As cheese layers go, not having a way of permanently stripping people of rights, and stripping prisoners of as few rights as possible temporarily, is a pretry solid cheese layer. In governments, it’s relatively easy to introduce laws targeting critical systems of balance like protesting, because governments have to change laws as one of their main functions. Separation of power is nice, it limits bad (vague) laws, and allows implementing tiers of importance in laws like constitutional laws being harder to override than regular laws, among many other benefits. But if protesting is allowed in the cpnstitution, criminalize making noise yaknow.
This. If you are deliberating between several precautions that avert the same catastrophe, stop deliberating - just use all of them. Having to pick between precautions is only a problem if they are conflicting somehow, or if you have a limited “budget” - and neither is the case here.
As in, independent judical system, I would presume. Eg in the US, I believe, the president can put his guy as a supreme judge, but cannot remove him and cant really tell them what to do. On the other hand, in Russia, every time a major case happens, somewhere, a law school graduate shoots their brains out, as everything they learned in those years gets publicly humiliated and disregarded at a whim of crooks in power.
Read the username on the picture. The “rights” discussed are the right to own guns.
But here’s the thing, a tyrannical government doesn’t let the opposition out of jail. Curtailing rights is a dumb way to look at things because that doesn’t happen.
Consider the January 6th insurrectionists. Should any one of them be allowed to own a firearm? No. It’s not tyrannical to think that.
Should they be allowed to vote? Yes.
Should they be thrown in prison forever? No.
Rightwing black and white definitions are stupid, don’t fall for them. It’s not “always the case” that someone losing a right is sufficient for a tyrannical government.
Navalny shouldn’t have been thrown in prison in the first place. It wasn’t his loss of access to guns that made it possible for Putin to murder him in prison.
Maybe context was about one specific right, but in Russia prisoners can’t communicate with outside world. The only way for Navalny to communicate was filing lawsuits. Because when lawsuit is filed he can talk with his lawyer and can say during court.
Should they be allowed to vote? Yes.
You forgot be elected. In Russia even if you only were in prison, but now isn’t, you still can’t be elected. You simply cannot get into ballot, so nobody can vote for you.
I disagree with the conclusion. This makes a better case for separation of power so the person in charge can’t look up the opposition
Swiss chees model of
accidenttyranny preventionGovernments are imperfect systems, you wanna have redundancies over redundancies. What you are saying is kinda like “I don’t think we need separation of power, we just need to get the laws just right so noone can break their election promises and abuse their power”.
As cheese layers go, not having a way of permanently stripping people of rights, and stripping prisoners of as few rights as possible temporarily, is a pretry solid cheese layer. In governments, it’s relatively easy to introduce laws targeting critical systems of balance like protesting, because governments have to change laws as one of their main functions. Separation of power is nice, it limits bad (vague) laws, and allows implementing tiers of importance in laws like constitutional laws being harder to override than regular laws, among many other benefits. But if protesting is allowed in the cpnstitution, criminalize making noise yaknow.
This. If you are deliberating between several precautions that avert the same catastrophe, stop deliberating - just use all of them. Having to pick between precautions is only a problem if they are conflicting somehow, or if you have a limited “budget” - and neither is the case here.
What do you mean by separation of power? :)
As in, independent judical system, I would presume. Eg in the US, I believe, the president can put his guy as a supreme judge, but cannot remove him and cant really tell them what to do. On the other hand, in Russia, every time a major case happens, somewhere, a law school graduate shoots their brains out, as everything they learned in those years gets publicly humiliated and disregarded at a whim of crooks in power.
So you want to say killing Navalny in prison is ok?
Read the username on the picture. The “rights” discussed are the right to own guns.
But here’s the thing, a tyrannical government doesn’t let the opposition out of jail. Curtailing rights is a dumb way to look at things because that doesn’t happen.
Consider the January 6th insurrectionists. Should any one of them be allowed to own a firearm? No. It’s not tyrannical to think that.
Should they be allowed to vote? Yes.
Should they be thrown in prison forever? No.
Rightwing black and white definitions are stupid, don’t fall for them. It’s not “always the case” that someone losing a right is sufficient for a tyrannical government.
Navalny shouldn’t have been thrown in prison in the first place. It wasn’t his loss of access to guns that made it possible for Putin to murder him in prison.
Maybe context was about one specific right, but in Russia prisoners can’t communicate with outside world. The only way for Navalny to communicate was filing lawsuits. Because when lawsuit is filed he can talk with his lawyer and can say during court.
You forgot be elected. In Russia even if you only were in prison, but now isn’t, you still can’t be elected. You simply cannot get into ballot, so nobody can vote for you.
That sounds kind of familiar