Skip to main content

View Diary: "Prosecutorial Gaps": The People Vs. The Justice Department (240 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I really don't want revolution, violent or (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    otherwise.  

    The restoration of the Constitution and true "rule of law" would do just fine for me.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:56:17 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  fine (0+ / 0-)

      then back folks are now back to being 3/5's a person.

      There is no true rule of law. laws have evolved over time and it's silly to think there's one true law or way of thinking about things.

       Like I said how about we do one thing that makes a ding in the armor of Wall Street. Lets use our collective power and resources to get congress and the President to raise taxes on capital gains.

      I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

      by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:10:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And what stops the wealthy class (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, gerrilea

        from undoing this, even if it could be achieved? Consider what has happened to other attempts at regulation and reforms, and how we advance slightly forward, in one achievement, only to lose ground in another, all due to the grip the wealthy class have built into the electoral structure. Look at all forms of so-called representative democracy and you will see a gradual shift of power over time to the wealthy class.

        Reforms like this just tie up energy, money, and time of the working class, which was the whole idea of the electoral process, to put a damper on democracy, to slow it down to a crawl, so as to conserve the status quo of the rich.

        They make you think you're just about to win, only to take it all away from you in the next cycle. Its a charade. And success becomes measured by tiny achievements here, with a loss of progress there, distracting us and locking up our focus into a perpetual battle that never ends.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:13:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm a cynic... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          serendipityisabitch

          so you're just feeding me my life blood with comments like this. There's no hope for change if we can't make the small steps stick. I love it. Feed me more.

          I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

          by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:30:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't care if you feed off this (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador, gerrilea

            jbou, that's your choice. But you're not looking at the pattern.

            There's no hope for change if we can't make the small steps stick.
            The irony is that this statement you've made is correct, if you mean we can't make larger changes by working within a system designed to thwart the influence of the working class to the benefit of the small minority of wealthy owning class.

            We need to stop defending this system which works against our own interests. Defending the status quo is much like the working class conservatives who support an ideology which enslaves them.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:35:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the devil I know is better than... (0+ / 0-)

              the devil I don't. Problem with you is you think you can replace the devil with a collective group of Angels that all work together to achieve harmony.

              I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

              by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:39:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, that's a strawman (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                What I want to do is remove the opportunity for authority so that the minority of sociopathic power seekers, who inevitably arrange for themselves to be at the helm, simply can't get their paws on it. To do this the helm must become the province of the people. This system we have was designed to preserve that power structure, and thus it is hopelessly flawed in its present form. In our system, the person at the helm controls the authority that keeps him or her in the position of authority, thereby insuring the continuation of this horror. The constitutional provisions make it virtually impossible to change the basic exploitative mechanisms. What idiot designed this insane approach? No idiot at all, but rather a very clever owning class.

                You're basically telling me you're afraid of change, that the unknown keeps you bound to a corrupt system.

                I don't always answer people for their benefit, but rather because the discussion is revealing to other readers. I figure there are people who can learn from the debates of the community. While I can't keep answering forever, these answers are illustrative of the status quo supporting attitudes which are prevalent, and how these attitudes stand in the way of moving forward.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:48:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't even know what... (0+ / 0-)

                  most of that means and I don't say that to be dismissive. If you want to endorse wholesale change then you have to take into account what we know about humans but you dismiss what we know about humans because these humans have been in a system that has corrupted them. So now we have a chicken or the egg situation. Are humans greedy and tribal by nature or has society created the greed and tribalism?

                  I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                  by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:08:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ray Pensador, gerrilea

                    There are a lot of works one can read that delve into your question of human nature. The history is that certain right wing writers have distorted Darwin's research to make us into individuals who struggle in mutual competition, as if without the ability to sociably organize into reciprocal, mutually cooperative societies.  Kropotkin, who was a biologist and a geologist, wrote a book about the dispute over evolution, which is worth reading, called Mutual Aid.

                    But look at the logic: If we are a species that is out to self-destruct due to greed and selfishness, it is all the more imperative we learn a different way.

                    But there is a lot of evidence this isn't what we are. We have developed survival traits of working together to more efficiently use our energy to survive. Egalitarian tribes have been found to live together in reciprocal relationships based on equality. Many animals exhibit such traits. Humans have these traits as shown through countless voluntary associations that help humanity, such as aid organizations, and other similar groups. Humans constantly are coming together without coercion in a vast number of existing organization to help each other survive, or to accomplish some common interest of goal. This is obviously a human trait.

                    But capitalism teaches us to be economic adversaries, literally pitting neighbor against neighbor, employee against employee, business against business, father against son, mothers against daughters. The history goes back to monarchism, feudalism, and beyond, to slave/master relationships, and we have been replacing systems based on one form of unequal relationship with another, rather than move to a more socially just way of living. No one argues for those older forms, but is capitalism really so much of an improvement? We still have master/slave relationships, and feudal lords in the form of bosses, the owning class, the wealthy class which dominates our electoral system. Hillary is now worth some 50 million dollars. This is the nature of our system, and it doesn't embody all that is the evolution of the human species. Certainly we struggle as individuals, and as tribes, but we have an ability as well to mutually reciprocate and cooperate.

                    We're capable of more. But I'd urge you to read up on this, because it is beyond the scope of this blog site.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:49:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  this is like a religion for you (0+ / 0-)

                      Humans have been greedy, selfish and tribal before capitalism. Not everyone is going to agree with you no matter how hard you try and in your new society those folks are going to exist. How do you deal with them?

                      I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                      by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:08:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not religion (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gerrilea

                        Science... Do some reading.

                        Even Darwin doesn't support your view. Actually, the view that humans are exclusively greedy, or that greed is the predominate, primary trait, is the religion of Ayn Rand and the right wing. It is not supported by science. We are more complex animals than that, and have complex traits.

                        The whole premise of the left is that people can work together in mutual cooperation, leaning to various degrees in this direction, from mixed capitalism with some socialization, to more socialist forms of organization. It is Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, and capitalist theory that spread this religion you follow.

                        The only people I would expect to not prefer this egalitarian form of society (especially once they experienced it) are people who want to exploit others through acquisition of a monopoly over the means of production. In this form of society, wage slavery would not be allowed, since master/slave relationships would be abolished. But if people wanted to not participate, and wanted to work alone or with family, without renting other humans' labor, that would likely be permitted. But if they didn't want to contribute to the collectives, they would have to pay for services which would otherwise be free to others. They would also be free to go to another community that organized differently, according to their preference. But they would not have a right to force exploitation on others. That is seen, in anarchist thought, as a form of violence, and it would be defended against.

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:35:53 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  science? (0+ / 0-)

                          what has science seen from humans that someone who looks back over time and sees greed for as far as the eye can't see?

                           Rome, Greece, Egypt, and all over Europe and Asia greed ruled the day no matter what year it was. We live in a society now that gets along for the most part, but that doesn't mean greed isn't a big issue. and I'm not saying that humans are just greedy, I understand they are complex and most folks have differing scales of the traits that make up being human, but the patterns do tend to make themselves known and greed is a pattern we have seen consistently throughout history.

                          And your new society is going to be easy pickings for sociopaths of the world. Better find a way to deal with bad people who will just stick a gun in your face and take what they want. I know, I know, in your new world there are no guns, but I don't know how there's going to be no guns. Or in your new world the sociopaths are going to see just how groovy it is and not want to ruin things?

                          I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                          by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:48:41 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You're perceiving history as written by elites (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            Even amidst the worst form of authoritarian control, there are countless everyday acts of reciprocity, empathy and kindness between neighbors, even strangers. History books don't record this, since they tend to string together events from dot to dot, leaving out everything in between. Thus, war and discord is much more discussed, the peaceful periods not leaving much to write about.  

                            As to guns, and weaponry, you're once again making assumptions and erecting strawman. Anarchists believe in self defense. Even Gandhi, heavily influenced by Tolstoy (an anarcho-pacifist) and Thoreau (an individualist anarchist) refused to condemn people who committed acts of violence for the sake of the revolt, even though he didn't support their acts.

                            Anarchists would have militias, and each community would likely have members of the militia, perhaps by rotation or some sort of way of regulating this. They would likely have an armory. It would not be a national military, but probably would be federated in a network involving each community, using a system of direct democracy and bottom up organization, directly answerable to each community, rather than under central control. Spain had a similar system, and they kicked ass against the fascists while the Republic sat on its hands without fighting back, in confusion and inaction, when their centrally controlled, undemocratic, top-down military command structure was taken over by General Franco, in the first days and weeks of the coup.

                            The anarchist federation of militias would not have a top-down central command structure. Sure, it would have delegates as "officers" but this would all be at the consent of the respective participatory communities, and all delegated officers in the militias would be subject to removal or recall immediately. Pretty hard for thugs to get control when you have an entire network of people who would not allow it to happen, since the army would be based on voluntary participation rather than coercion. And yes, this was proven to work in Spain, and also in other examples, such as with the anarchist Makhnovists in the Ukraine against the Bolsheviks who fought against them.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:35:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and where are we now? (0+ / 0-)

                            Capitalism has won and you're talking about nonsense that  lost to capitalism but you keep dreaming, the world needs dreamers.

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:57:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, might makes right? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            Capitalism may have "won" but this isn't over, and the history of two hundred-plus years is just the blink of an eye. The feudal system was in place for 700 years, and various monarchs and empires go back many thousands of years. Most of these are now behind us. Capitalism will one day collapse, and will be a thing of the past.

                            That is, if we manage to survive capitalism.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:18:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the one thing we all are is doomed (0+ / 0-)

                            So fighting the small battles that can help make things easier for the majority of people offers the best value to a human with limited time and resources.

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:28:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think fighting the reformist battles (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            insures our demise. It co-ops our attention, time, and money, while capitalism rages on and rapes the earth and uses the atmosphere as a sewer. But I understand your view.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:36:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

      •  So, we've rescinded the 13th & 14th Amendments? (0+ / 0-)

        And calling for constitutional law is now akin to racism?

        Disgusting "debate" tactic you're using.

        Don't like what others recommend, you attempt to twist what was said into something else.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:28:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the true rule of law... (0+ / 0-)

          needed to be amended?

          I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

          by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:05:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Semantics. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador, Kasoru

            Those amendments are part of "the true rule of law".

            Our creation must follow those rules, not make ones of their own that abrogates them.

            Since I never suggested anything else, it gets us no where constructive when you claim otherwise.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:49:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site