Well if anyone is tired of posting about it and wants to do something about it message me
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.
…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
Rights are a human construct. They don’t exist in nature.
When we fight to construct them, we must fight to keep them. In a representative democracy, our representatives are the ones who are supposed to fight for us. But when they fail, that responsibility falls back to the average, everyday, common person.
The struggle to keep our rights moreso has to do with getting people off the couch to stand up for what they believe in. In an apathetic society glued to their toys and treats, their bread and circuses, it’s that much easier for other humans with wishes to collect their own power to dismantle that of the majority.
human construct
Yeah but also human constructs are objectively real. When people say human construct in a way that relegates it lower than natural phenomenon, that is a condition of alienation. A building is a human construct, so is art, so is a computer, an industry, a society.
Rights are a social construct which are no less real than physically existing constructs. Money is a social construct, so is religion. In fact religion served the same function in feudal society that money does in capitalism.
Since all these things were created by humans, and humans are a part of nature, then human constructs are a part of nature. Rights develop as society develops, as we become more advanced. The right to healthcare didn’t exist before there was widely available doctors, hospitals and clinics to provide it, before modern medicine made it possible to heal many injuries and diseases. But now that the material basis for it exists, like any technology, it can be used to improve the lives of everyone or it can be used to oppress.
But both outcomes are the result of human activity.
I dig your conclusions, but I think that it becomes difficult to convince people when we ourselves are operating on a faulty basis. The reality of human alienation from nature is not an essential part of nature, it is the product of human activity. It took work to create it and it will take work to reverse it. Alienation is a condition of class rule.
But the real basis for it, which in our society is laws and culture underwritten by state violence, is not as permanent as the fact that it is the labor and time of all the workers that create what is actual. And if we want to change the conditions that alienate us from the rights and privileges that our labor creates, then we have to be able to reflect on reality as it is. We have to not just make mystified statements but really understand every step in the process of the logic that we will use to inform the actions needed for liberation.
Taking for granted our alienation as natural and not imposed, is a step in the logical process that informs our subjugation.
deleted by creator
Oh I remember when GRRM used to write GoT. Those were the days.
deleted by creator
“stick 'em with the pointy end”
I read your abbreviation as IASIP and was thinking that this was pretty deep compared to their usual content.
The whole purpose of buying the crown in the first place was to get the plebs nice and tipsy so we can take 'em to a nice comfortable place in the fields and, you know, they can’t refuse, because of the implication.
Hah
deleted by creator
Pretty words, but no system is self enforcing. What’s going on now has taken the collective agreement of thousands of bad actors, over decades, to enact.
true, but I think the system must be afraid. we need the public to have solidarity and see beyond their privilege. the American individualist ideology is a poison.
The moment the state tries to fuck over anyone, the whole nation should stop to a halt.
Welcome to Anarchism :)
It tells you that concepts like rights, morality, right and wrong are all human inventions and are all relative. Nature or the universe do not enforce them. You have a certain right, if the society you live in thinks you should have that right and if circumstances allow that you have that right. That means none of these rights are unalienable or guaranteed, they have to be defended constantly. Both physically and legally, both against internal and external threats.
Mistaken reality aside, The (alternate) Janeway has a point. Everything we’ve painstakingly fought for previously has to be backed up by those willing to ensure those rights remain. By what means is yet to be seen, preferably by ink or, as needed, by force. Understandably, blood has already been spilled, but we hope to not need go further.
It tells you that concepts like rights, morality, right and wrong are all human inventions and are all relative.
As much as philosophy, mathematics, logic. Relativistic fallacy: relative is the wrong word. They’re unfalsifiable.
Nonetheless, committing yourself to a set of premises commits you to their logical consequences. Consistency demands rejecting contradictions.
You have a certain right, if the society you live in thinks you should have that right and if circumstances allow that you have that right.
Moral relativism. Do you think we should respect a moral system that accepts slavery as much as one that doesn’t? If not, then you’re not a moral relativist, and that’s a relativist fallacy.
That means none of these rights are unalienable or guaranteed
Ideas such as inalienable/universal/inherent rights come from moral philosophy. The premise (if you accept it) is that they exist regardless of whether people choose to respect them: no one can revoke those rights, only violate them. Violations are unjust.
They don’t imply a legal system can’t violate ethics. They’re for arguing a system shouldn’t & to demand a more just one. It’s still up to us to get that system.
Supposing is implies ought (or the contrapositive in this case) is a naturalistic fallacy.
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.
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.
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.
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!
that’s a lot of words to say what Carlin said much simpler
Yeah. This is literally just quoting Carlin and then saying we need to change the system after.
Part the OP is saying verbatim is around 3:30
It’s a failure of the system as a whole. If the rights are described as inalienable as a fact of the law then any president who tries to take those rights away should ideally be stopped by the courts.
Instead we have courts that say “hmmm it’s pretty clear they can’t do this so how can I make up some absolute nonsense to say it’s totally ok for them to do it…”
It is worse than that. The shadow docket is pretty much the judicial version of “neener-neener, I can’t hear you!”
