Why republicans should care about having a king

[Seattle]

In some cases it's not even the minority.

Several studies have shown that, if people had their way, the majority would pay zero (or close to zero) taxes and rely on other people to support the government. That, of course, does not work on a large scale. So we need tax laws.

Same thing with trash disposal. If there were no laws against it, state parks, sidewalks, parking lots etc would fill up with trash. "I meant to dispose of it properly but the baby got sick/my car broke down/I got in a fight with my girlfriend" etc. That's commonly known as the "tragedy of the commons" and it's a natural consequence of people who put self interest above communal interest. That's not even a bad thing - but it does tend to lead to problems if the potential downsides are not addressed with laws.

If you leave it up to emotion or politicians you will just get "let the rich pay for it all, they have the money, I just live paycheck to paycheck. The other guy doesn't pay his fair share"

Or people won't look at the facts or size of the numbers and it will just be never cut spending, just tax more, even though the numbers won't back that up.

It's generally better for people to largely rely on taking care of themselves and letting the government deal with the infrastructure.

 

[Sarkus]

If you leave it up to emotion or politicians you will just get "let the rich pay for it all, they have the money, I just live paycheck to paycheck. The other guy doesn't pay his fair share"

Ah, yes, how dare we live in a democracy and leave it up to politicians to enact our will.
You also imply that there is no logic behind the rich paying for things, and the poor not. That is false. Bear in mind that the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. Is it not only equitable that the rich then pay the majority, or, if the poor have no means of paying, for it all?

Or people won't look at the facts or size of the numbers and it will just be never cut spending, just tax more, even though the numbers won't back that up.

For many, the numbers do back it up. Because they may hold to a different ideal than you, a different view of what the country should or shouldn't do for its people. Just asserting that the numbers don't back it up is, well, just your opinion.

It's generally better for people to largely rely on taking care of themselves and letting the government deal with the infrastructure.

Again, that's your opinion. You are entitled to it, of course, but others have very different opinions as to the ideal involvement of government. There is no "generally better" until you have established what it is you want, the goal of your existence in the country. And there is no one-size fits all.

 

[Seattle]

Ah, yes, how dare we live in a democracy and leave it up to politicians to enact our will.
You also imply that there is no logic behind the rich paying for things, and the poor not. That is false. Bear in mind that the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. Is it not only equitable that the rich then pay the majority, or, if the poor have no means of paying, for it all?

That's not factual. There is just your mistaken opinion that the "rich get rich on the backs of the poor".

For many, the numbers do back it up. Because they may hold to a different ideal than you, a different view of what the country should or shouldn't do for its people. Just asserting that the numbers don't back it up is, well, just your opinion.

The numbers don't add up, in the US or in the UK. You guys have high taxes and high debt. It doesn't add up. In the US there isn't enough "rich" money to pay for the spending that we have already racked up.

Again, that's your opinion. You are entitled to it, of course, but others have very different opinions as to the ideal involvement of government. There is no "generally better" until you have established what it is you want, the goal of your existence in the country. And there is no one-size fits all.

This is the only paragraph where you are correct. It is an option, my opinion. It works a lot better than your opinion based on the high tax/high debt and low productivity UK economy though so even there, it's opinion based on reality.

 

[Sarkus]

That's not factual. There is just your mistaken opinion that the "rich get rich on the backs of the poor".

There is some poetic licence with "poor", sure, and there are some exceptions, but on the whole it really is true. And has been throughout history.

The numbers don't add up, in the US or in the UK. You guys have high taxes and high debt. It doesn't add up. In the US there isn't enough "rich" money to pay for the spending that we have already racked up.

We don't have high taxes in the UK. We are pretty much average for the OECD as a % tax burden. We are higher than the US, yes, because your taxes are low. And our debt is lower as a % of GDP by some 20% or so.
Further, noone is advocating taxing just the rich. Just a more progressive system, where tax cuts for the already wealthy and rich at the expense of healthcare, for example, is, well, indicative of a government with vastly different priorities than we are used to over here.
Also, noone is saying that spending couldn't or shouldn't be more efficient, for example.

This is the only paragraph where you are correct. It is an option, my opinion. It works a lot better than your opinion based on the high tax/high debt and low productivity UK economy though so even there, it's opinion based on reality.

No, it doesn't work better based on the UK, because the UK has different priorities to what you would want. Debt is not a priority over our social wellbeing, our social contract, for example. It is something to be mindful of, sure.
All you're doing by using the UK as an example is pointing to something that doesn't have your values, doesn't have your priorities, and saying your view is better because it results in your own priorities. It's like if you only judge a car by its speed, you can point to your car that does 300mph and claim it better than my car which only does 150mph. But if I value luxury and smoothness of ride over speed, if that's what I want from my car, you need to judge my car by what it offers me, not on what you want it to offer you.

 

[Seattle]

There is some poetic licence with "poor", sure, and there are some exceptions, but on the whole it really is true. And has been throughout history.

We don't have high taxes in the UK. We are pretty much average for the OECD as a % tax burden. We are higher than the US, yes, because your taxes are low. And our debt is lower as a % of GDP by some 20% or so.
Further, noone is advocating taxing just the rich. Just a more progressive system, where tax cuts for the already wealthy and rich at the expense of healthcare, for example, is, well, indicative of a government with vastly different priorities than we are used to over here.
Also, noone is saying that spending couldn't or shouldn't be more efficient, for example.

No, it doesn't work better based on the UK, because the UK has different priorities to what you would want. Debt is not a priority over our social wellbeing, our social contract, for example. It is something to be mindful of, sure.
All you're doing by using the UK as an example is pointing to something that doesn't have your values, doesn't have your priorities, and saying your view is better because it results in your own priorities. It's like if you only judge a car by its speed, you can point to your car that does 300mph and claim it better than my car which only does 150mph. But if I value luxury and smoothness of ride over speed, if that's what I want from my car, you need to judge my car by what it offers me, not on what you want it to offer you.

How are the rich getting rich "on the backs" of anyone?

Excessive debt isn't good for any economy, regardless of what you want out of that economy.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

When you can torture someone for information, you absolutely miss the truth. Power then defaults to whoever has the best torturers.



And when lawyers can routinely violate the law, the truth belongs who whoever is the most lawless.

Not talking about allowing torture or other illegalities. Talking about rules of evidence and the actions of judges.

 

[billvon]

It's generally better for people to largely rely on taking care of themselves

Absolutely.

and letting the government deal with the infrastructure.

Unfortunately, "the government" isn't free - nor is the work they do. Roads, fighter planes and SNAP all cost money. Which is where taxation comes in. And for 90% of the people in the US, taxes are something someone else should pay.

 

[billvon]

Not talking about allowing torture or other illegalities.

Those things are "illegalities" because of procedures. "Just rough him up a little until he talks" isn't torture according to cops! It's just a way to streamline the justice system. So we now have procedures (Miranda rights, procedures on how to handle prisoners, body cams) to prevent that sort of thing.

And cops really want to put criminals behind bars. So when their body cam reveals they DID hit him once or twice - just to get the guy to admit he hit his little girl, for example - and they go free, that's a very strong incentive to not hit people in the future.

The justice code (like many of the other sets of rules, procedures and requirements in the US) evolved over time, and each evolution was intended to prevent some injustice or speed the application of justice. Miranda is a good example here. So is Mimms vs Pennsylvania. So is Mapp vs Ohio. Most of those added more procedures - and most of them were good additions to the procedures police, prosecutors and judges now follow.

As with so many other things the US has done, it's not a perfect system, but it works pretty well most of the time.

 

[Seattle]

Absolutely.



Unfortunately, "the government" isn't free - nor is the work they do. Roads, fighter planes and SNAP all cost money. Which is where taxation comes in. And for 90% of the people in the US, taxes are something someone else should pay.

Government isn't free (nor is anything else). Taxes are high enough to pay for the basic infrastructure. The bottom 90% do seem to think that the top 10% should pay for everything that the bottom 90% wants. They do pay for much of it but there is a limit in reality that most don't embrace.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Those things are "illegalities" because of procedures. "Just rough him up a little until he talks" isn't torture according to cops! It's just a way to streamline the justice system. So we now have procedures (Miranda rights, procedures on how to handle prisoners, body cams) to prevent that sort of thing.

No, they are illegalities because of laws, not because of judges decisions.

And cops really want to put criminals behind bars. So when their body cam reveals they DID hit him once or twice - just to get the guy to admit he hit his little girl, for example - and they go free, that's a very strong incentive to not hit people in the future.

That is definitely illegal and the cops need to be fired and/or prosecuted. But the evidence does not have to be excluded The same for any type of 4th amendment search violation.

The justice code (like many of the other sets of rules, procedures and requirements in the US) evolved over time, and each evolution was intended to prevent some injustice or speed the application of justice. Miranda is a good example here. So is Mimms vs Pennsylvania. So is Mapp vs Ohio. Most of those added more procedures - and most of them were good additions to the procedures police, prosecutors and judges now follow.

As with so many other things the US has done, it's not a perfect system, but it works pretty well most of the time.

If you refuse evidence because of police or lawyer misconduct you deny a possible truth. If witness testimony is disallowed by judges because of lawyer objections, you deny a possible truth.

 

[Sarkus]

No, they are illegalities because of laws, not because of judges decisions.

The laws define the procedures, and the courts, through decisions the judges make, define their scope and applicability. This becomes precedent for that court's jurisdiction until overturned by a higher court.

That is definitely illegal and the cops need to be fired and/or prosecuted. But the evidence does not have to be excluded The same for any type of 4th amendment search violation.

Courts exclude unlawfully obtained evidence not because they are indifferent to truth, but because how we find the truth actually matters. The legitimacy of justice depends as much on the means as on the ends. A truth built upon the breaking of laws undermines the very foundation it claims to serve, and.corruots the very justice you're striving for.
Sure, there are cases innumerable where evidence is excluded due to being improperly obtained. But those procedures are there to protect the innocent. In all cases. If you allow evidence illegally obtained you allow the prosecution to benefit from illegality, and you weaken the incentive of the police to uphold the law.

If you refuse evidence because of police or lawyer misconduct you deny a possible truth. If witness testimony is disallowed by judges because of lawyer objections, you deny a possible truth.

Yes. Which is why the police and prosecution have to be diligent and law-abiding. They have to ensure that justice is free of any smell of corruption, wrong-doing, etc.

Ultimately those procedures are there to protect your rights, and to ensure that justice, when served, is beyond reproach. Will the adherence to those procedures be considered restrictive by those looking to find evidence? In some cases, sure. But it should be a price worth paying.


You also seem hung up on the idea that courts arrive at the truth. They don't. They arrive only at the most convincing explanation of events given the evidence presented. If it matches the truth, great. If it doesn't, that's what appeals are for. Good lawyers aren't there to speak the truth. They are there to speak what the court wants to hear in furtherance of getting you the best outcome. Usually the truth is an easy way to get there, but it's not, or shouldn't be, their focus.

 

[billvon]

No, they are illegalities because of laws, not because of judges decisions.

?? That's an oxymoron. If you don't like the laws, change the laws. Until then, laws are the opposite of illegal.

That is definitely illegal and the cops need to be fired and/or prosecuted. But the evidence does not have to be excluded The same for any type of 4th amendment search violation.

If the evidence is not excluded, then the same thing will happen. Every. Single. Time.

"Look, we GOTTA put this guy away! So do an illegal search and we'll make sure you're taken care of. You don't want to be the reason he gets off, do you?"

If you refuse evidence because of police or lawyer misconduct you deny a possible truth. If witness testimony is disallowed by judges because of lawyer objections, you deny a possible truth.

Not at all. No denial of the truth. You just have to prove the truth a different (and legal) way.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Legality and procedure is often just legality and procedure and not justice. You do not punish evidence, pro or con. You punish the gatherers if done wrongly. You don't throw out testimony just because judge and/or opposing council thinks it is irrelevant, you let the jury decide. Otherwise someone else is deciding what the jury hears, so who needs a jury.

 

[Sarkus]

Legality and procedure is often just legality and procedure and not justice. You do not punish evidence, pro or con. You punish the gatherers if done wrongly. You don't throw out testimony just because judge and/or opposing council thinks it is irrelevant, you let the jury decide. Otherwise someone else is deciding what the jury hears, so who needs a jury.

There is purpose behind every law and procedure. They don't make up laws and regs for fun, but to protect the innocent.
As for throwing out irrelevant evidence, courts define irrelevance as anything that doesn't speak to the tendency to make a fact or action more or less likely. So on what grounds do you think irrelevant information should be entered into evidence? Why should someone's speeding ticket be entered into evidence when the case before the court is an entirely unrelated financial fraud case? And remember, the person wanting to present evidence gets every opportunity to explain why it should be considered relevant. And when the judge makes such a ruling it can be appealed. There is opportunity to argue why evidence should be accepted, but maybe you can succinctly explain why irrelevant information should be allowed? All it can do is serve to fallaciously bias the jury/judge.

 

[C C]

No, in many ways procedure and the advesary system blocks the truth. When evidence can be thrown out for human mistakes you miss some truth. When the judge can sustain an objection you miss some truth.

You're perhaps referring to where a television show or movie lawyer wants the jury to hear a craftily evoked _X_, even if it is immediately deemed improper, disqualified, and the judge tells the Twelve to forget it? How that plays in real courtroom drama might or might not be another matter (I admittedly don't watch Court TV, apart from glimpses of it in the course of channel surfing.)

At any rate, I suppose it slots in the territory of the "formally described world" versus "what happens in the world as directly experienced".

An example of the latter would be Trump winning twice, by exploiting everyday cunning or the untidy ways that the hoi polloi pragmatically perceive people operating (in terms of manipulating each other). In contrast to how the intellectual community conceives and theorizes society functioning morally and well-managed on paper.

Poker might be another, where there aren't just rules (semblance of internal regularity) but externally contingent "bluff and messing other with players' heads".

Similarly, engaging in logical fallacies may incur penalties in umpired debate classrooms. But in the non-ideal or concrete world, they are weapons of war (even lawyers utilize them).
_

 

[billvon]

Legality and procedure is often just legality and procedure and not justice.

I hear pilots say the same thing about the FAR's. "A bunch of stupid rules written by bureaucrats." But every single FAR was written in blood; they were added because people died due to their lack. 14 CFR 91.207, the requirement for an ELT? People were crashing their planes, surviving the crash, but then dying of exposure when no one could find them. 14 CFR 91.17, requiring no alcohol 8 hours before flying, and setting a maximum BAC limit of 0.04%? Pilots were crashing and dying with great regularity even though their BAC was below the 0.08% which makes you not legal to drive. Even though the pilot in question only had one shot and then said he was fine.

Not just bureacracy and procedure, actual deaths.

Likewise much of our procedure now comes from experience. For example, the 6th and 14th amendments came directly from the experience the US had with penniless criminals and former slaves; they were generally found guilty simply because they could not effectively defend themselves. Since that is a miscarriage of justice, they added protections for those people.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

I hear pilots say the same thing about the FAR's. "A bunch of stupid rules written by bureaucrats." But every single FAR was written in blood; they were added because people died due to their lack. 14 CFR 91.207, the requirement for an ELT? People were crashing their planes, surviving the crash, but then dying of exposure when no one could find them. 14 CFR 91.17, requiring no alcohol 8 hours before flying, and setting a maximum BAC limit of 0.04%? Pilots were crashing and dying with great regularity even though their BAC was below the 0.08% which makes you not legal to drive. Even though the pilot in question only had one shot and then said he was fine.

Not just bureacracy and procedure, actual deaths.

Likewise much of our procedure now comes from experience. For example, the 6th and 14th amendments came directly from the experience the US had with penniless criminals and former slaves; they were generally found guilty simply because they could not effectively defend themselves. Since that is a miscarriage of justice, they added protections for those people.

None if the above has much to do with my criticism of court procedure today.

 

[parmalee]

Exactly! The reason for all the bad stuff that happened in Italy is due to the people who opposed Mussolini. If they had just had more common sense . . . .

Trump is equivalent to Mussolini? There's your problem.

Never mind your "equivalen(cy)" strawman, what exactly is the "problem" with the quoted passage? Do you dispute that this administration is fascistic/authoritarian/totalitarian* ? Do you think that's an exaggeration or overstatement or something? Seriously? Do you read much? And that's a serious question, not just an "insult" or "name-calling" (as you would be apt to have it).

* In Arendt's reading, Mussolini was an authoritarian fascist, but not totalitarian--that description is reserved for Hitler and Stalin and, retroactively speculating, perhaps Franco, as well.

 

[billvon]

None if the above has much to do with my criticism of court procedure today.

To be more direct, you don't understand why the procedures came to be in the first place, so you see no value in them.

 

[Seattle]

Never mind your "equivalen(cy)" strawman, what exactly is the "problem" with the quoted passage? Do you dispute that this administration is fascistic/authoritarian/totalitarian* ? Do you think that's an exaggeration or overstatement or something? Seriously? Do you read much? And that's a serious question, not just an "insult" or "name-calling" (as you would be apt to have it).

* In Arendt's reading, Mussolini was an authoritarian fascist, but not totalitarian--that description is reserved for Hitler and Stalin and, retroactively speculating, perhaps Franco, as well.

Mussolini abolished democracy, banned political parties, censored the press, and jailed or executed opponents. So, in substance, Trump is not Mussolini. Trump plays a populist strongman.