u/GShermit

For 10,000 years politics has been the people vs authority. It's been about the struggle, of the people, to be free and govern themselves. The people do that by using their rights.

Our rights are seldom fully defined and as rights sometimes "butt heads", they become more fully defined.

The nature of authority inherently wants to limit our rights. If we don't explore our rights, the definitions aren't done and authority will try to impose limits as they see fit. If we think authority is wrong, we can take it to court...if we can afford it.

I personally want our all rights, defined to the maximum point the people (not authority) will allow.

During a discussion recently someone here told me this. Frankly that shows a lack of understanding of the basics of capitalism. I see this often in debates with anti-capitalists. Actually we see that tactic often when someone is "anti" something. Omitting basic principles invalidates almost anything.

Competition is what makes capitalism work. Without competition, capital can accumulate exponentially. That leads to plutocracy.

It's important to understand the basics, if we don't we can't decide which economic system to use. Different markets will not always have the same capacity for competition. If there's not enough competition capitalism shouldn't be used.

Utilities, healthcare, legal services, finance, insurance, are all markets that may not generate enough competition. Sometimes this is because of needed regulations.

I believe capitalism CAN deliver better products and services BUT not always.

I see no reason to incarcerate non-violent offenders. Restitution, community service, counseling and homeless camps (think Civilian Conservation Corps) should suffice to rehabilitate non-violent offenders.

Violent offenders need to be separated from society until they're not violent. Also people who flee from the police will be considered violent because of the danger that imposes on society. Incarceration should include being responsible for one's upkeep and maintenance (cooking, cleaning, laundry...). No sentences because there's no release until the violence is gone.

Many of US like a little punishment, especially when the offender is an asshole but cruelty doesn't solve the problem and only makes it worse.

Yesterday I wrote about using democracy to improve justice in America. That was just the first part dealing with offenders is the second part.

I see no reason to incarcerate non-violent offenders. Restitution, community service, counseling and homeless camps (think Civilian Conservation Corps) should suffice to rehabilitate non-violent offenders.

Violent offenders need to be separated from society until they're not violent. Also people who flee from the police will be considered violent because of the danger that imposes on society. Incarceration should include being responsible for one's upkeep and maintenance (cooking, cleaning, laundry...). No sentences because there's no release until the violence is gone.

Many of US like a little punishment, especially when the offender is an asshole but cruelty doesn't solve the problem and only makes it worse.

I'm not saying justice in America is the worst. I've traveled a bit and I'd much rather face justice here than China, Qatar or Mexico. BUT we could do better.

In my opinion the biggest issue is our justice system is controlled by money. That's called plutocracy. The solution to plutocracy is democracy or "the people" participating more.

Juries are the key to better justice in America. We have to push the envelope of our rights because authority will try to limit our rights.

There are certain rights inherent to a jury trial. For example the right for juries to judge law.

"Sparf v. United States ended the 100-years old custom of informing the jury of their right to decide both statutory law and facts. Since then, judges do not inform juries of their power to nullify the case statute, although that power is universally acknowledged." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparf_v._United_States

Again authority will try to limit our rights, that's inherent with authority. Our rights have to be continually discussed and new legal ways to push the envelope shouldn't be feared.

Edit; Perhaps I didn't explain it well but I don't think people got my point here. We need to explore our rights more, in this case jurors rights.

We have a right to a speedy trial but it's never been defined for jurors. If unbiased and local are the only qualifications listed in the Constitution for jurors, where do peremptory challenges come from? Jurors have a right to hear evidence but judges limit what evidence we see. Jurors have right to judge both fact and law. All these rights (and more) need to be explored and defined AND the legal profession won't help much because it's not PROFITable...

About 4-5 years ago I started posting about democracy. I wrote a lot of posts (and considering my poor writing skills, a lot of effort) protesting against TPTB's (in this case the 1% and politicians) definition of democracy.

Democracy means the people rule. There are many ways the people can rule/govern themselves. All those ways, involve the people legally using their rights, to influence the due process of the country.

Authority doesn't willingly share power with the people, that's the nature of authority. It's logical that TPTB would try to limit our democracy. It's also logical TPTB would only champion types of democracy (or rights) they could control (like voting).

Democracy is the people legally using their rights, to influence the due process of the country. There's nothing really unusual or dangerous in that statement.

BUT the unpopularity of that statement was very surprising. I didn't realize how well TPTB had conditioned US to accept their limiting our democracy.

How did TPTB accomplish limiting our democracy? First, democracy requires the people's participation, so disenfranchising US from action is easy. For example juries, who wants to do jury duty? Limiting our juror's rights is easy.

TPTB also try to scare US, telling US how dangerous it is like Article V conventions. They tell US to trust our politicians and their parties because it's safer.

Bottom line is no one should limit how we legally use our rights to influence the due process of our country. It's the interaction of all of US, legally using any right we want, to influence the due process of the country, that makes democracy work.

About 4-5 years ago I started posting about democracy. I wrote a lot of posts (and considering my poor writing skills, a lot of effort) protesting against TPTB's (in this case the 1% and politicians) definition of democracy.

Democracy means the people rule. There are many ways the people can rule/govern themselves. All those ways, involve the people legally using their rights, to influence the due process of the country.

Authority doesn't willingly share power with the people, that's the nature of authority. It's logical that TPTB would try to limit our democracy. It's also logical TPTB would only champion types of democracy (or rights) they could control (like voting).

Democracy is the people legally using their rights, to influence the due process of the country. There's nothing really unusual or dangerous in that statement.

BUT the unpopularity of that statement was very surprising. I didn't realize how well TPTB had conditioned US to accept their limiting our democracy.

How did TPTB accomplish limiting our democracy? First, democracy requires the people's participation, so disenfranchising US from action is easy. For example juries, who wants to do jury duty? Limiting our juror's rights is easy.

TPTB also try to scare US, telling US how dangerous it is like Article V conventions. They tell US to trust our politicians and their parties because it's safer.

Bottom line is no one should limit how we legally use our rights to influence the due process of our country. It's the interaction of all of US, legally using any right we want, to influence the due process of the country, that makes democracy work.