• Rhyfel@lemmy.world
    4·
    26 天前

    Well if anyone is tired of posting about it and wants to do something about it message me

  • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
    128·
    27 天前

    Sorry, but there’s always going to be a power structure.

    Tribal people shunned those who didn’t fit in and forced them out.

    • Thadrax@lemmy.world
      11·
      27 天前

      The trick is to build a system with good checks and balances and an informed populace willing to uphold those rules.

      • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
        123·
        27 天前

        I don’t know who said it, but it goes something like this.

        “Every time you build a fool proof system, the fools get more creative.”

        You can’t force people to be ‘well informed’ or even aware of their own interests.

        There was plenty of evidence that Donald Trump was a complete idiot and a scoundrel available in 2015. a decade later and there are still tens of millions of people who will tell you he’s a genius and a moral exemplar.

        • Thadrax@lemmy.world
          1·
          27 天前

          That’s why independent news media is so important. And not just independent from state interference, but also financially. Consolidation into a few big players is really counterproductive.

          And lately there is the whole social media debacle that needs a solution, even more so with fakes and invented “news” becoming more and more easier. That’s an unsolved problem that needs a solution.

          However an informed population really is the only way to keep a system from going downhill, everything else basically bets on some benevolent ruling class or dictator and history has plenty of examples how that goes.

          • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
            2·
            27 天前

            Look up Roger Ailes, Ronald Reagan, and the death of the Fairness Doctrine.

            Back in the day, if a commentator on a TV or radio station expressed an opinion, the station was obligated to allow any member of the public to present an opposing view. That meant that most stations avoided wild rhetoric.

            Reagan got rid of that. He did a lot of other things to make the media worse. Before Reagan, half hour commercials like “GI Joe” or “The Transformers” weren’t allowed.

    • lunaluster@lemmy.world
      92·
      27 天前

      Which “tribal people?” When? There are tribal people all over the world. They don’t all share the same “power structure.”

      • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
        74·
        27 天前

        Let’s just turn it around.

        Why don’t you show me a society with absolutely no rules of conduct? Where everyone does exactly what they want, all the time?

        • lunaluster@lemmy.world
          51·
          27 天前

          Let’s just turn it around.

          Why don’t you show me where anyone is claiming such a thing? You conflated practices of “shunning” with the customs of all “tribal people.” There are variants of exile and rehabilitation that run through a spectrum of possible options to all people who are self governing. Who exactly are you arguing with?

          • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
            34·
            27 天前

            Thanks for proving me right.

            I only bothered with one sentence, but you took the time to point out that all self governing people practice some form of social control.

            Thanks again.

        • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
          2·
          27 天前

          having rules =/= rigid, all-encompassing, near unbreakable power structures.

          You and your housemates can make rules. You cant throw each other in prison. Big difference

    • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
      4·
      27 天前

      Ackshyually, humans have experimented with various forms of social organization for most of prehistory and history. The current system of states with rigid laws and extreme enforcement is very recent. People used to transition between different hierarchies and systems, even seasonally. Not to mention many peoples would self-organize. In some Northest-American tribes, it was common sport to make fun of leaders and not take them too seriously. Some Sumerian city states had massive assemblies instead of high councils.

      I HIGHLY recommend “The Dawn of Everything” by David Graeber to EVERYBODY.

  • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
    15·
    27 天前

    normally you’d have a congress that flexed its power to stop the President from touching rights at all, but over time the Executive has become more and more powerful and Congress more and more impotent.

    • AxExRx@lemmy.world
      3·
      26 天前

      I think this is the defect of a 2 party system, and the fact that it incentivizes party above body (of government)

      Congress and the executive should want to fight for their respective bodies’ power, in a vacuum, to ensure they have the maximum effect in their position, whicb would lead to them fighting eachother on overreach.

      But with parties, the executive and his party’s members in congress have the same goals. And since congress has minority representation while the executive does not, in order to maximize those goals, a majority party with the presidency is incentivized to increase executive power at the cost of legislative, to increase the parties goals, and minimize the effect of the minority parties power to hinder them.

      This would return to the norm whenever you had an opposing congress, if it werent for the executive veto/ signatory powers, meaning a president with a 1/3 minority in congress can prevent the return of power to the legislative.

      And then, when the congress and president of the other party align, they have no reason to lessen the power the other side pushed towards the executive, and and continue to push for the same transfer to tbe executive to increase their efficacy.

  • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
    517·
    27 天前

    Lemmy: “SOCIALISM!”

    I’m listening. How does that economic system stop money and power from flowing to the top?

    Lemmy: “FUCK YOU!”

    If you are angry about capitalism, an economic system, why are you not angry about democracy, the political system that has failed to reign in the economic system?

    Lemmy: “GO FUCK YOURSELF!”

    Snarky, I know. But I have never once got an answer to those questions. Not once.

    (Education is my answer to all of the above. Fight amongst yourselves.)

    • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      52·
      27 天前

      Shalafi: mmmm daddy I do love eating poopies

      Lemmy: yes my child suck it all up

      Shalafi: oh boy next I’m going to murder puppies

      Lemmy: dude what the fuck

      Snarky, I know. But I have never once had an answer to my question. Not once

      (My answer to the above is the following. Femboy Friday. No more strife only life mrow)

    • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
      62·
      27 天前

      How does that economic system stop money and power from flowing to the top?

      By having no top. In socialism, there are no capitalist owners, and the only way to make money is through having a job and its corresponding salary. If you don’t believe socialism reduces the flow of money from “bottom” to “top”, you can check empirical data. Top 1% in modern capitalist Russia has above 20% the total income of the country. In Soviet times, they possessed 4% of the total income. This is a marked reduction in the money flowing to the top.

      If you are angry about capitalism, an economic system, why are you not angry about democracy, the political system that has failed to reign in the economic system?

      Because democracy under capitalism is a lie. Having a powerful owning class whose interests oppose those of the majority ensures that the interests of the majority will be ignored.

      Now you have answers

      • menas@lemmy.wtf
        1·
        27 天前

        “How” is ambiguous; you describe a system that have not those issue, but not how to get this system. If we agree on the following :

        • the economy structure the social system
        • the way we struggle will structure the society of tomorrow
        • this issue are worldwide

        Then we need to organize internationally in order to get the mean of production, and without a “top” that could become ruling class. I think that’s pretty much describe revolutionary unionism or anarcho-syndicalism.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      2·
      27 天前

      I’m listening. How does that economic system stop money and power from flowing to the top?

      It doesn’t. Money will continue flowing to the top, just like the blood in your body will continue flowing to your head. What’s important is that it also flows downwards again, to make a full circle. That’s why we need wealth taxes.

  • MrSulu@lemmy.mlEnglish
    5·
    27 天前

    I think this is the one key question about any elected government. We would need to make sure that representatives are truly accountable, not just replaced. We have corporate manslaughter legislation after all.

  • Serinus@lemmy.world
    403·
    27 天前

    And that needs to start with electing representatives and a President that respects and will restore our Constitution.

    This goes farther than Trump. Our Constitution was damaged and tattered well before that, which is part of what enabled Trump and his admin to rip it to shreds.

    The President getting to decide what laws are enforced and which aren’t is kind of insane. The pardon power was generally fine before this, but was clearly open to abuse.

    Hillary broke the law with her private email server, but everyone else, including W and Trump and Hegseth broke that same law. It just wasn’t enforced until they decided to hit Hillary with it specifically.

    If there are laws we shouldn’t enforce, we should just get those laws off the books. And clearly we need to rein in Presidental power. We left a whole lot of trust that the office would be run in good faith, and regardless of party that’s generally been true, with exceptions. The is the first administration that hasn’t given a single fuck about the American people.

    I feel like every previous President was brought in and made to understand that it’s a china shop, and they need to not act like a bull, and then were given very specific and explicit reasons why for each situation. There’s a reason each predecessor did what they did, and those actions were generally done under the advisement of some very smart people with solid research, and if you’re going to break with that previous decision, you better be really damn sure of what you’re doing.

    This is the first administration that’s come in and told each of those advisors to fuck right off. The biggest plate to break so far is the idea of Due Process. When I Google the phrase “Due Process”, the first thing that comes up should absolutely not be about immigrants. This isn’t a law centered on immigrants or anything about immigration specifically. You know the reason that immigration comes up as the top result for “due process” in 2025.

    • Michael@slrpnk.netEnglish
      2·
      27 天前

      If there are laws we shouldn’t enforce, we should just get those laws off the books.

      I believe it’s a fairly sane and desirable that we hold people accountable for arguably mishandling classified information (regardless of intention to mishandle) and sidestepping established procedures to communicate in an official capacity. It’s very reckless behavior and many people were involved in enabling this behavior.

      I couldn’t find a source on George W. Bush violating the same law and invite clarification, but I’d just like to say that I imagine that we can manage equitable and reasonable enforcement of the law as a society. Not all laws are made equally, but some are pretty sensible.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            2·
            27 天前

            W’s case was more egregious because the emails were just deleted. Hillary had someone review which emails were personal and which were relevant and turned over all government related emails.

            • Michael@slrpnk.netEnglish
              1·
              27 天前

              I mean Hillary’s lawyers also used BleachBit, right? It’s just suspicious, but I don’t want to discount from what you are saying. Thanks again for informing me.

              The reason why people reacted so strongly to Hillary I feel is due to the Obama-era persecution of whistleblowers/etc.

              • Serinus@lemmy.world
                3·
                27 天前

                It was her IT consultant, Platte River Networks (PRN).

                The PRN technician then had what he described to the FBI as an “oh shit moment,” realizing he had not set the personal emails to be deleted as instructed months earlier. The technician then erased the emails using a free utility, BleachBit, sometime between March 25 and 31.

                The lawyers had likely instructed them to regularly delete personal records older than X. IT dude didn’t do his job. Tried to do it after the subpoena, which of course is highly illegal. But Hillary didn’t order it, and when the lawyer ordered it it was almost certainly legal.

  • huppakee@piefed.socialEnglish
    4·
    27 天前

    This makes sense, there are no abuses of human rights in the US it is just that some people do not meet the conditions to receive privilages like basic healthcare, food assistance or fair treatment by state employees.

    • spaduf@slrpnk.net
      10·
      27 天前

      Bottom up democratic structures. Remove the unitary executive and make all representatives instantly recallable.

      • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
        62·
        27 天前

        In other words: anarchism.

        We will only be safe from powerful people’s whims when we abolish concentration of power: we have to get rid of rulers and replace them with true representatives.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      1·
      27 天前

      The way the question is worded they are in the process of gaining agreement. Trying to address an issue with others when you haven’t gained agreement on the actual problem ends up taking longer with more of a mess and things getting pushed in every direction with some people not knowing if it has already been accomplished. Say Terry thinks the problems is solved when you oust the Tyrant, Jerry thinks the problem is over when you get the supreme Court balanced, and Barry thinks the problem is solved when we stop having federal troops deployed in cities. Jerry, Terry, and Barry all think they are working together, but are all pushing in different directions and ultimately will achieve none of the goals described by poster. Getting them all to agree on a problem, makes it clearer to know when the goal has been completed. (Hopefully). Granted soon as you start to implement anything, shit is going to hit the fan anyways, because the easiest way to power is by tearing down others, not building others up.

  • JcbAzPx@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    27 天前

    There are only two systems in which rights cannot be taken away. A system with no rights in the first place, or a system with no living beings to have rights.

    The point of inalienable rights, is they are the rights which must always be fought for and protected no matter the cost.