you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

If it's really that easy why don't we pay them to make good laws?

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Even if we could afford it, we could not afford the compete with those who then pay to pass a new law or who pay to repeal or amend the "good" law, or to pay the judges to not interpret the law in such a way that it neuters any good that was in it. It's a high-stakes poker table we can't afford.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So the solution is to just surrender and give them all the spoils without even a fight? If you force them to fight it would serve to expose the game and that can be used to fix the system.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those are not the only two choices. What you call "force them to fight" is a fight on their terms with literally their currency. That's hardly a fair fight, to put it mildly.

Do "they" need us more than we need them? I think so. They need us to honor their currency. Then need us to do more than pay our taxes. They need us to give our labor in exchange for their currency, where our labor could be given to each other in exchange for what we need as much as possible.

Trade produce with neighbors, or just give it to create the trust needed for a community to start meeting it's own needs as much as possible. It is very little, I agree, but it is a start. Perhaps you are in a place where you can not grow any produce of any real amount. Then to a previous question, your answer would be "oh, it turns out I need them very much actually. wow that sucks." Yes, it does suck, you are right. How can you change that? "Move" may be a simplistic answer, maybe it can become a good answer. But there is an answer. It will require creativity and maybe a system engineer's approach to the problem.

Stop believing what they say about everyone else. If "they" say this person is a criminal, find out, and see if that was some odd bad event or maybe even not true at all or something more complicated. We need each other more than "them"; and to get very biblical "the accuser" is our enemy, not each other and really not even the people under the label "them". We live in a time where false accusations are rampant, just as we live in a time where science of all sorts is corrupted badly for both petty reasons and for very profitable reasons. Stop believing them. Stop giving them what they want. Stop playing by their rules.

Fixing the system assumes it is not rotten down to the timbers that frame it and the foundation it sits on. The system is not even "them". The system allows for jury nullification, they don't want those words even spoken. The system wants us to assume judges will be impartial and will protect the people when power is used by the government wrongfully against them. Civil forfeiture, IRS just seizing assets when they decide a business or a person appears to be doing something wrong (like a case about a restaurant that only takes cash and thus would make large cash deposits regularly but not exceeding the $10K limit), the reliance on obviously bad "precedents" that no one other than a judge or prosecutor would think reflect the law, and a whole host of other tricks show the system is not in trustworthy hands. We do not, should not, need "the system". They do.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the Jews will pay more