Comment on [deleted]
the_abecedarian@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
The law is just an expression, more or less up-to-date, of the existing balance of power between those who have power and those who don't
Comment on [deleted]
the_abecedarian@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
The law is just an expression, more or less up-to-date, of the existing balance of power between those who have power and those who don't
iii@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
Not quite true, I reckon. Plenty of examples where both public and executive and legislative would’ve deemed certain behaviour problematic, yet the perpetrator, of marginal power, walks free.
I’d say the law also gives power to the marginalized, when the judicial behaves independently, as they should.
I agree with you there are perversions to this ideal, such as elected judges, plea bargains.
the_abecedarian@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Disagree in general that it can empower the marginalized -- it is at most a reflection of the power that the marginalized can sometimes use, either because they did things like strike or organize in the past, or because they have access to powers won by less marginalized people.
iii@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
Would you say we’d be better off by merging executive and judiciary, doing away with legislative?
the_abecedarian@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
I don't exactly know what it'd mean to merge the judiciary and executive. If we're just tinkering with the system, the most democratic parts of the system are the US House of Representatives, UK House of Commons, and similar population-based representation, so I'd want to expand them at the others' expense.
I don't believe that will solve much, though. In a hierarchical society, those on top will use any existing govt structures to their benefit, having more control when there is less democracy. In general, I believe in spreading power so thinly that it effectively disappears. Instead, people affected by a decision should be the ones to make it, not merely to vote for those who promise to do right by them.