What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics

They're basing their decision based on whether the plaintiff violated the person or property of the defendant.

Edit: oops. Got plaintiff and defendant reversed.

 

Circular? The judge should determine whether the defendant has violated the person or property of the plaintiff. Not sure how that's circular. That's why we need judges.

 

You've short circuited.
Blown a fuse.

You have defined what a judge is required for.
That is it. Stop. No need to keep repeating it

A judge decides.
That is all.

You discern that you have been violated and refer it to a judge, and a judges decides if you are correct.

People who seek election.

Those of us who would rule over others.

 

There's no cycle. You're just restating the same thing over and over.

It's the job a the judge to settle the case of whether the plaintiff's person or property has been violated. The judge does this by hearing the evidence to understand the facts of the case and then determining if the plaintiff has indeed been violated.

As I mentioned before, this is how common law came about.

 

If a plaintiff comes to you and says he thinks someone flying a drone across his land is violating him but you should decide.

There is no need for congress, not need for a jury, an executive branch or even a judicial branch.

He trusts your judgement. Give it to him. End of.


No congress, no laws, no lawyers, no justice system.
Oh the power in your hands.

The power to tell a man to take his drone and buzz off or not.
Woot.


Consider it the other way, you deciding for everyone. The power you have as a lawmaker deciding where everyone can fly their drones. Even those that had caused no issue. Even those that never asked your opinion. Even those that do not respect your opinion. Even those you don't know exist and don't know you exist.
And this power telling every judge and respected figure what to think say and do.
That is power. I see no reason for anyone to have it.


So we often have devolved power. Devolved legal systems.Voluntary arbitrators.
We don't bother with an army of lawyers and lawmakers.
We just find a guy both parties can trust. A parent,.a teacher. An elder.
And let them decide.

And if both sides agree to arbitration then this is considered legally binding too.
National laws can be used to enforce such systems if you wish.
Beth Guin courts and Sharia courts. Judge Judy. Corporate arbitration.


In normative situations we don't defer to the law for dispute resolution.
My wife decides. I decide. My boss decides. The audience decides.
We draw lots or flip coins. Take a vote with a show of hands.

Your desire to make petty laws, is unwelcome.
It is not needed.
Your wish to rule over us, is rejected.

 

I agree that those who are power-hungry or seek office for personal gain do not meet the desired criteria to be "public servants". . . . Perhaps if we would not continue to reward such individuals, a more desirable class of candidates might be coaxed out of obscurity???

 

There is no circle, because there is no dependency.

A plaintiff takes a defendant to court, claiming that the defendant has violated his person or property. The judge hears all the evidence and renders a verdict on whether or not the defendant is guilty of doing so or not. There's nothing else that is depended on, so there is no cycle.

They wouldn't have to use your decision. They might, because it is a precedent, but they don't have to.

 

Personal gain or altruism. Do gooders are just as bad.
When a man comes of age, he becomes an adult.
To not treat him as such is one of life's greatest insults.

The trials of rights of passage are unpleasant and the responsibilities placed on us as adults are costly to our lifestyles.
When after all this you then say I am not adult enough to decide what's best for me for myself, that you know what is best for me and I still don't....I am not going to like it.
Or you.

So really what I am looking for in a candidate is either one who will do as he is told. Allow me to make all the decisions and he just pass them on.
Or two: one who does nothing. Who recognises it's not his place to make decisions for other people because he respects them as equals.

And I sort of feel that in todays technological age. There is no need for number one. I can pass on my own wishes directly through a great many electronic mediums.
No one is physically required to vote or speak on my behalf. It does not help democracy for anyone to attempt to do so.

So the roles of representative democrats needs to be greatly reduced since it is now just an anachronism. A concentration of power instead of a transference of it.

I would suggest that one chamber of parliament is no longer required.
Law makers and not needed here any more. Reformers, fine.
But those who decide and pass the laws don't need to be representatives any more. They can be ourselves directly as equals.

 

Laws are not made solely for YOUR benefit, and many adults STILL have not learned to play nice. . . . Anarchy is NOT a viable alternative to bad government.

 

I am the alternative to bad government.
Either you act altruistcally, or I will.

You won't like being on the receiving end of it any more than I do.

Anarchy = me in charge.
And it's a very viable alternative. Best avoided in my opinion.


Laws are a tool. They are there for my benefit or I don't abide by them.
You aren't the only person who can make and enforce them.

So don't. Because it is a two way street.
Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Live as neighbours in peace.

So take your laws and apply them only to yourself. Because I may have very different ideas to you of what playing nice involves.

 

Yes, something like C is my response. We should eliminate the issuance of decrees that force people to behave in a particular way under pain of punishment (i.e. legislation). Rather we should have disputes between parties adjudicated by judges whose goal would be to determine whether the defendant had violated the person or property of the plaintiff.

 

So this is what you are suggesting? That we apply law models based on comic books?

 

Apathy is indeed a rampant problem in our country. In fact, the whole concept of civic duty is sorely lacking.

 

There are only two moments in a politician's career where you could get them to champion legislation that is counter-intuitive; at the beginning of their career when they are desperate to garner recognition, and at the end of their career where they care more about their legacy.

Just look how little progress has come from campaign finance reform. This one area could break the stranglehold special interests have on our legislators, but few of them have the balls to vote it through.

 

No, that's not what I'm suggesting.

 

Sure sounds like it.

 

Elected judges adjudicating cases between plaintiffs and defendants sounds like what, exactly?

 

Based on what I have read of your posts, you seem to be promoting the premise of the Judges BEING the Law, which is the premise of the entire Judge Dredd universe.

 

I wonder if...

I am an older guy. I don't really know what goes on in our schools. I only know what is revealed in the right-leaning media. My personal experience from high-school in the early 1970s leads me to not doubt the reality of what I see reported. We were heading down the road of socialistic indoctrination even then.

So, education is now all about social justice, and the path to socal justice is the creation of some Global Socialist Utopia. What if teachers could be convinced of the greatness of the US Constitution? What if, instead of viewing it as an obsolete piece of paper, written by dead, white, slave-owners, they instead taught is as a document guaranteeing social justice for all people?

Just think of the possibilities. If people already believed that Johnny had full rights as an American, even if he wore a dress, no one would have to work to turn him into a confused person. He could grow up as he would. There would be no need to make him think that he was a girl because there would no longer be the need to create numbers for a safety-in-numbers defense. The safety would already exist. Guaranteed by a strongly supported belief in the US Constitution.

Needless to say, the instruction of the relevance of our Constitution to our daily lives would be best prefaced with study of the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - Thomas Jefferson et al

I suggest a full period class, say 10th grade, teaching these two documents; stressing their relevance to today's society.

 

What a strange part of America you must have grown up in.

 

It was a long time ago. Well before the left totally took over our education establishment.