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.
America, where everyone is equal, and some are even more equal than others!
No, give me all the rights, I’m good, I swear.
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.
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.
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.)
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
In Soviet times, they possessed 4% of the total income. This is a marked reduction in the money flowing to the top.
Didn’t the vanguard class of ruling elites oppress everyone else with their authoritarian power & political inequality? Not sure a more oppressive model of privilege is the one to uphold. More than a few would much rather take economic inequality over that bullshit.
You’re right, definitely better to be oppressed by the authoritarian power and political inequality of capitalist elites.
Inb4 “tankie!”: no, both are/were shit.
Someone’s confused about words. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian, communist dictatorship, where totalitarianism is the most extreme authoritarianism.
Totalitarianism is a label used by various political scientists to characterize the most tyrannical strain of authoritarian systems; in which the ruling elite, often subservient to a dictator, exert near-total control of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious aspects of society in the territories under its governance.
That places it on the authoritarian edge & far left of the ideological map.
It’s not on the left edge, because the hierarchy between political elites & the governed features some economic inequality & tremendous inequality in political power/authority.
The degree of control in totalitarianism differs from that in ordinary authoritarian regimes. An authoritarian régime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature: they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested. In contrast, a totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as
- Political repression: according to their ideology, rights aren’t inherent or fundamental, the state is the source of human rights. Rights (eg, freedom of speech, assembly, & movement) are suppressed. Dissent is punished. Unauthorized political activities aren’t tolerated.
- State terrorism: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
- Control of information: full control over mass communication media & the education system to promote the ideology.
- Economic control.
Liberal democracies with market economies lie somewhere on the libertarian side of the ideological map. They may be a number of things, however, authoritarian they are not, and definitely not that extreme variety of it.
So yes, many of us who think human rights are fundamental would much rather deal with some economic inequality in a liberal democracy than the extreme political inequality & authoritarian repression in a totalitarian state. The latter at best trades one kind of inequality for another far worse inequality.
No you’re right, I’ve changed my mind. I’m happy to get fucked over by someone as long as their power comes from being wealthy…
Tap for spoiler
/s because i have a feeling you’ll need it.
The greater evil doesn’t justify the lesser.
Just because you have a weird fetish for
- unequal dispensation of benefits according to your political loyalty, class, or ethnic origin
- illegitimate authority sending you to forced labor camps
- secret police extrajudicially killing your indoctrinated ass
- purges, mass executions
- unrestricted power to trample your freedom of movement, assembly, speech
and the state altogether treating you like its bitch, that doesn’t mean everyone else needs to share in your perversion.
At least in a liberal democracy, the state is our bitch when we criticize politicians, oust them from office, take abusers to trial. Most of us in liberal democracies aren’t getting fucked over by the wealthy in any palpable way. And when they do fuck us over, we get to challenge them in court with legal equality before the rule of law.
In contrast, when the state fucks you over, you don’t get to challenge shit.
So, it’s great you embrace your state-dom fetish, but no one’s asking.
Not sure why you assume I’m pro authoritarian state-socialism nor why you can’t imagine more than two options.
The original comment made very specific questions which I addressed. Furthermore, you went ahead and assumed that the top 1% consisted of a vanguard of politicians. Actually the top earners were highly trained professionals like university professors, popular artists, or high level researchers. But sure, I’ll address your concerns.
Didn’t the vanguard class of ruling elites oppress everyone else with their authoritarian power & political inequality?
If there had been an oppressive ruling class exploiting everyone else, there would be no material explanation for why healthcare was completely free and guaranteed for everyone, why education was completely free to the highest level, why jobs were guaranteed, why housing was guaranteed and costed on average 3% of the monthly income, why the overwhelming majority of workers were unionized and had power to replace directive personnel at their workplace through union… Had there been a chaste of bureaucrats exploiting the rest of the country, you’d expect at least to see a luxury industry from which they could obtain specially expensive goods such as luxury cars, yachts, designer clothes, luxury watches, luxury photo cameras… There was no such thing. I’m not saying there wasn’t ever corruption (as in any system), but the outcomes were the most egalitarian the world has seen, and even in eras of economic growth slowdown the purchase power of the average citizen went up significantly.
you went ahead and assumed that the top 1% consisted of a vanguard of politicians
Reread it: it mentioned nothing of the sort. There are worse kinds of power than economic. That was the criticism: trading economic inequality for a more pernicious, repressive inequality in political authority.
The Soviet state did not even recognize inherent human rights: according to Soviet legal doctrine, the state is the source of human rights.
it is the government who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the individual
Resources don’t make up for a lack of liberty, especially when rights there are worth nothing. The political repression isn’t great: suppression of rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, & movement; punishment of dissent; crackdown on unauthorized political activities. State terrorism isn’t great: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps. How is life there worth living if the secret police could just disappear you or take it away the moment an authority deems you inconvenient?
For all its faults, market-based liberal democracies don’t have that. They don’t have Soviet legal theorists treating rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law as excesses of “bourgeois morality”.
The Soviet state did not even recognize inherent human rights
By guaranteeing access to education, healthcare, housing, retirement and work to everyone, the Soviet Union de-facto promoted human rights more than any other state at the time. You simply don’t care about the welfare state if you think those aren’t human rights in the most obvious sense. Whether some state “signs a declaration” is worthless, the important and measurable thing are the outcomes, and by any metric, the Soviets excelled in them.
The political repression isn’t great: suppression of rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, & movement; punishment of dissent; crackdown on unauthorized political activities
For all its faults, market-based liberal democracies don’t have that
You’re just a western supremacist if you truly believe that. The USA has literally bombed its citizens for their political opinions. It holds the highest prison population in the world by a long shot, comparable to the height of the Soviet prison system during World War 2. There are currently fascist henchmen legally disappearing citizens based on the colour of their skin, 25% of black men go through prison at some point in their lives…
And those are only the sins within the empire. Go ask a Palestinian, an Iraqi, an Irani, an Afghan, a Mexican, a Korean, a Vietnamese, a Cuban or a Congolese what they think of American support of human rights. Go ask an Algerian, a Malian, a Burkinabe what they think of French support of human rights. Go ask a Guatemalan, a Peruvian or an Ecuadorian what they think of Spanish support of human rights. The USSR, by fighting against colonialism and imperialism, was the de-facto biggest supporter of human rights in the world. Not having colonies was the ultimate expression of support for the equality of all humans.
Sure, there where excesses in repression in the USSR when they were under threat of extermination at the hands of Nazis according to Generalplan Ost. After WW2, the prison population was reduced to the lowest the region has seen (remember what came before and after the Soviet Union), and persecution was stopped as there was no longer a Nazi threat. Sure, excesses were made, but the country was under the heaviest duress possible, and it still managed to save a hundred million lives from poverty, disease, and outright extermination.
You don’t really believe in human rights if you don’t think that raising life expectancy from 28 to 70 years of age in 40 years isn’t a miracle.
Yeah, the soviet system was bullshit. I’ve never lived in it and only read about it, but from i can tell, it wasn’t good.
I believe that in soviet times, less wealth flowed to the top, but that’s mostly because there was less wealth to start with. People suffered and lived in poverty, and according to communist propaganda, it’s more important to ensure that the “people at the top” don’t have too much instead of assuring that the people at the bottom don’t have too little. I see it exactly the other way around.
Also i think that the “top-down” approach of making a very strong central government that controls all aspects of life through surveillance is exactly the wrong way to approach the problem of how to live a good life. Power over other people always leads to problems, because people group A will say how people group B shall live, while also not understanding the situation of group B or lacking context. Only the people themselves can meaningfully rule themselves.
I believe that in soviet times, less wealth flowed to the top, but that’s mostly because there was less wealth to start with
Wealth inequality in Tsarist Russia was infinitely higher than in Soviet times, and the country was much poorer. So no, that’s not the reason. The reason was ideology and politics.
People suffered and lived in poverty
People in the tsarist empire up to 1917 died at the ripe age of 28. By the 1960s, life expectancy had risen to almost 70 years of age. The country went from being a feudal backwater composed of 80% peasants in 1929, to being the second world power by the 1970s, with universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, the abolition of unemployment and homelessness, and the least wealth inequality the region has ever seen. The GDP levels reached by the late 80s weren’t recovered until the 2010s in most post-Soviet republics, and even now some of them like Ukraine never fully recovered from the devastation of the return to capitalism.
“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.
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.
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)
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.
I agree!
Yes. And this is why rights are lost as soon as you lower your guard.
Okay, you’ve identified a problem. What is your solution?
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.
Bottom up democratic structures. Remove the unitary executive and make all representatives instantly recallable.
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.
Exactly
Sortition sounds like an interesting idea (TL;DR - make congress work more like a jury where randomly selected citizens make the laws instead of career politicians):
“Do you agree?!?” Lol. Yes I actually do but this has some real bot energy which makes it feel a bit weird. Like this post isn’t actually genuine and even though I agree with it, it only exists to try and get dissenters in so people will argue and become more divided. Feels icky like a reddit post
A lot of our so-called “rights” simply express the fact that we have money.
Can we drive a car? Yes, because it costs money and we have that money. Can we go to school? Yes, again, because it costs money and we have that money. Can we go on holidays to a foreign country? Yes, again, because it costs money and we have money. Same for lots of other things.
The people have money because companies need to pay them if they want people to work at their companies. That’s what gives people power. The fact that they are needed in the economy. No kind of law is causing this; simple necessity is.
It’s the collapsing labor market that is causing a seeming decline in our rights. It’s not Trump’s fault (well, also trump’s fault, since he made it much worse, but the issue started years earlier) that people are experiencing hardships, because of the collapsing labor market.
The solution would be to accept that the labor market is collapsing (because very few things can be done against that) and start accepting people for being people, independent of how much work they perform. In other words, stop glorifying “hard workers” and start seeing the value in people themselves.
Welcome to Anarchism :)
…we did build that system. We are currently in that system, which has been corrupted by a criminal and terrorist organization called the Republican party
George Carlin put it pretty well, imo.
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.
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.
Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for also clearing that up. I truly appreciate it.
The checks and balances were destroyed when the supreme court elevated the president over the law. And even before that money and corporate interest had influenced the laws against the people.
The supreme court is corrupt. We know that, yet nothing was done. The president is a criminal, yet nothing was done. The elections are influenced and the election law is outdated and unjust. Yet nothing was done.
It gets worse under Republicans and next to nothing changes under Democrats.
