upvote

points

by Bilal_io2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ben_w1 hours ago|
next
[-]
I'm not a lawyer, but what you're describing sounds to me like an example of strategic lawsuits against public participation, just where the targeted "public" isn't a member of the general public but a public servant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
reply
upvoteby jghn1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
These lawsuits need to be charged against the police pension funds, not the city coffers
reply
upvoteby Bilal_io1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I agree with you
reply
upvoteby mcdonje1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
"would"? There is currently a disparity in how rich and poor people are policed.

I get the point that there should be some limited immunity so they can do their jobs. Debatable, but worth the debate.

The argument about the repercussions of eliminating immunity is logical. It just seems like one of those things where there are multiple factors contributing to undesirable outcomes, and that makes it necessary to talk to experts.

reply
upvoteby thot_experiment1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
You're so close! Instead of patching the issue maybe let's solve the root problem of spiky power distribution among humans. We don't need to make sure cops have immunity to prosecute powerful people. We need to not have powerful people.

(though realistically speaking yes there's probably some level of procedural immunity that probably makes sense, similarly with business bankruptcies not ruining the people who start the business)

reply
upvoteby BrenBarn4 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Weird that you're getting downvoted for this. You're spot on.
reply
upvoteby Ar-Curunir1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I agree with you, but most people aren’t ready to engage with basic anarchist arguments
reply
upvoteby thot_experiment1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don't know if anarchy helps in this situation, I actually think you need robust social systems with buy in from citizens to prevent the natural accumulation of power. The fundamental problem is that there's a diminishing cost to acquiring power as you acquire power, this relationship should be inverted. The more powerful you are the harder it should be to get more powerful.

This is basic engineering, you don't want runaway feedback loops, the underlying system is unstable so we need a control system.

reply
upvoteby p1esk1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
We need to not have powerful people

What does this even mean?

reply
upvoteby thot_experiment1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's very easy to get started on this, you tax the shit out of people who have a lot of money because the old adage is true.
reply
upvoteby p1esk5 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Even if you could achieve that, there would still be rich people. Musk would still be a billionaire even if he had to pay 90% tax.

Plus, many powerful people in government are not that rich.

reply
upvoteby queenkjuul1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Make currently powerful people less powerful and currently powerless people more powerful.

C'mon, HN users forgot how to think? Forgot to ask Claude?

reply
upvoteby p1esk29 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
To do that you first need to become more powerful than those powerful people, right?
reply
upvoteby BrenBarn4 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Well, no, you just a need a coalition that collectively is more powerful.
reply