748
We Rejected Monarchy in 1776. The Supreme Court Just Brought It Back.
(www.thenation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
748 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19135 readers
1364 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There's no court with authority over the Supreme Court. There's no systemic means to operationally define their means as illegitimate.
So, if the system is to be preserved, the rules must be respected, and We the People must tolerate corrupt Justices until they choose to resign or die. But, such is intolerable! The system must yield. But, if it ignores its core rules then it deserves no respect!
It's important that we recognize that various systems are scams and learn how they work. But, often, just like this example, what we find is that the system allows no means of recovery that We the People would find adequate.
They'll always tell us to be patient, to wait for a more convenient time for change, praying that enough of us don't reason our way into enough systemic impasses to do more than cast a meaningless ballot. Most of us have very little and trust each other even less. But, sacrificing for our neighbor is the only way forward.
The government is allowed to impeach them. Legally speaking.
The right will block such an action though because they too are corrupt.
Yes.
I encourage ignoring the present day situation for a moment. Instead, think along the lines of systemic design.
If our system exists as a two party system, if one party takes a strong position using whatever legal means, they know the other party will soon also use the tactic in greater magnitude. If they impeach Justices, the vote certainly along party lines, then the composition of Congress changes, and their Justices will surely face impeachment. If one party wisely expands the court leaving room for future expansion, the other party will in the future certainly expand the court to the limit.
Neither party actually needs to fulfill promises to anyone but those that donate money for the propaganda. The propaganda keeps the vast majority from killing all the would-be kings, money lenders, and politicians.
The initial designers of our system predicted that the greatest weakness is the possibility of devolution into a two party system. They thought it'd take much longer than "immediately".
Coming back to the modern day, and he last several years, I think some protesters said it best:
America's combination of First-past-the-post and presidential democracy makes a two-party system all but inevitable.
You're not wrong.
And who signs 90% of these apparatchick's paychecks? It's the billionaires.
The billionaires are the ones LARPing as the puppeteers. And if we don't challenge them, their shitty LARPs are uncontested and become real.
The billionaires are the primary beneficiaries of the status quo.
I feel like you're anthropomorphizing. The vast majority of the billionaires aren't human. We deregulated banks with a partial repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act. And, we continued to strengthen corporate personhood.
Today, the banks are the billionaires that own the stock in the corporations that exercise their right to free speech in campaign donations to puppeteer politicians into making the status quo worse for the vast majority of humans.
Valuable thought! Thank you!
You're not wrong about the system being what it is.
But the system lacks agency. The system cannot do things differently one fine Tuesday morning. Only human beings have this kind of latitude.
Another distinction is that the system is a tool while humans are the beneficiaries or the fodder for the system, as the case may be. Billionaires are the foremost material beneficiaries of the system.
Therefore, the weak link is the human, and not the system. But. What you say is, in my opinion, very important because it helps us recognize that the human beings are organised in networks and are also creatures of habit, which means there is a lot of inertia that must be overcome. Even the best action won't have instant results.
Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for the billionaires. They have the biggest per-individual influence on the system which essentially prints money for them. It makes sense that protecting and expanding the system would be the sole concern of the 99% of the billionaires. The other 1% might have some earnest sympathy for the underclass. Might... So simply adding an element of risk will change this equation.
However if you think there is a clever way to gum up the system in a purely procedural/bureaucratic way, I am all ears. I am currently not smart/cognizant enough to think of a way.
Crystal clear piece of writing. Humans are obviously collectively responsible for the systems they create and perpetuate.
An individual, regardless of wealth, power, and ability, is powerless relative the systemic mandate. Large groups produce mediocrity. Their outcomes fail to meet the prerequisite urgency of the human mandate.
The first rule consists of a relatively small number of people, who know little to no information concerning organization assets (such as member identities). This limits the harm that can be done to the organization as a whole by any individual member. The structure can range from a strict hierarchy to an extremely distributed organization, depending on the group's ideology, its operational area, the communications technologies available, and the nature of the mission.
Gold.
The human Mandate!
First time I hear such powerful words. I have to think about this and the last part too.
Above, I wrote one cohesive response, not three snippets. It's powerful because great people wrote it: from King to Wiki. I'm just a guy who knows you're not looking for ideas.
I am always learning, but I have accepted that I own my process of learning. This means I enjoy discussions and it is possible for me to learn something new in a discussion or to remind myself of something I don't want to forget, and I sometimes enjoy good company, but the grand strategy of my cognition and the final say on meanings and values are not collaborative for me, but the sole responsibility of myself to myself.
I enjoy solitude every bit as much as I enjoy good company.
I respect your agency in your learning process and assume personal wisdom.
I learned very little useful studying the Bible and philosophy by myself. Some subjects are just that way, such as Capital. And, no one comes just wanting to learn the material. All want an opportunity for praxis.
Another thought, for the longer term.
We could add real downsides to being in the upper class. So that being in the upper class is no longer a strict upgrade from the middle class, but a trade-off.
For example we can guarantee most privacy protections for the lower classes (the very opposite of the current surveillance capitalism). At the same time the upper class would have to submit their persons and all their transactions and doings to the most stringent transparency requirements. Don't like being constantly under a microscope and in public view? Don't be in the upper class.
While the middle class would be a position in the middle with just marginally less privacy than the lower class, but much more privacy than the upper class.
Privacy is prerequisite to a life of dignity. It's not a bargaining chip for another prerequisite.
Wealth is only a prerequisite up to a point, beyond which wealth transitions into a luxury as opposed to something life-giving or dignifying.
I can accept accumulations up to somewhere between $50 and $150 million.
People with extreme accumulations have to be watched and regulated if we want a society that optimizes for broad dignity.
If you want to optimize for peak dignity, monarchies with unlimited accumulations are the best for that.
If humans constantly tempted by wealth and power, who then fall victim to it, have their right to privacy infringed, then they'll go right on feeding their addictions, no matter the cost of maintenance of privacy?
I don't view privacy as an unconditional right. Also perfect privacy is impossible.
If you are a small individual whose decisions will not make big waves in society, you can be completely anonymous as far as I am concerned.
If you command great resources and can singlehandedly significantly affect my world with a stroke of a pen, I need to watch you, because you are dangerous to my world.
Right now our society is exactly upside down in this aspect.
If I were in a position of power I'd hopefully willingly give up some privacy. But, no law can sit in judgement, let alone something so simple.
Agreed. Also to add, it's much better than having almost no power and almost no privacy like right now.
Besides, maybe you can think of another way to restrain the accumulationists at the top of society.
Right now being a billionaire is zero risk, zero downside. It's not a trade-off but a strict upgrade from the middle class. No wonder the billionaires are insane and detached from reality.
So either risk (like randomly executing some of them every year), or a downside, or both have to be added to the equation to keep the top of the society in check.
Taxes, government ownership, or communal ownership. For example, tax all wealth above $100m at 100%.
Taxes can be imposed after the billionaires are afraid to bribe the government.
Right now there is zero risk, zero downside for a billionaire to finance elections, offer revolving door opportunities, control via ownership almost all the media. Also zero risk, zero downside for the public officials to whore themselves out. All the political whores are walking and jetting around in safety and in luxurious comfort. Why would these folks change their behaviours?
Right now when a government official renegs on their promises, there is zero risk, zero downside. Politicians can promise to raise taxes on the superrich and just never do it, and zero risk, zero downside.
Well, privacy can be infringed as a motivator after tax and campaign finance reform. Prison is a bigger motivator.
You guys need to write a new constitution yesterday. The US constitution is an old relic and it's hardly surprising it's so disfunctional.
Been saying that for years. It's been a quarter millennium, how about we get the best and brightest minds from every field of academia, science, philosophy, and yes, even *shudder* religion, to get together and literally hold a constitutional convention? Just toss that old scrap of parchment out and re-write it from scratch, with modern language that is unambiguous and straightforward. If the rights enshrined in the Constitution that we hold so dear to us are actually that important, I'm sure they'll make the cut for Constitution v2.0. But while we're in there, we might as well clarify some stuff. Let's clarify that 14th amendment, let's define what a "well regulated militia" is, and so on.
Of course, the people in power like the ambiguity. It means that as long as someone somewhere could interpret the constitution in some way that is favorable to them, they can have it mean whatever they want when it suits them and as long as they keep the populace at each other's throats with an unending culture war they know we'll never organize enough to change that. It's a bit of a pessimistic outlook. Our fates are controlled by people who like the dysfunction and that sucks because we could very easily fix a lot of the problems by unifying, but I don't know if that's possible at this point.
Thank you for the compliment. But, lucky for us, humanity has much better choices.
Pack the court, or order the CIA to assassinate the conservative justices.
Of course neither of these will happen.
Time to get your passports current.