Politicians make the laws, if people are being oppressed, its more of the politicians being the root cause of evil.

So… ACAB + APAB?

EDIT:

I’m using these definitions for the word politician: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politician

noun. [UK] - a member of a government or law-making organization

noun. [US] - a person who is active in politics, esp. as a job

  • the_abecedarian@piefed.socialEnglish
    2·
    13 hours 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.xyzEnglish
      2·
      12 hours ago

      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.socialEnglish
        1·
        11 hours 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.xyzEnglish
          1·
          11 hours ago

          Would you say we’d be better off by merging executive and judiciary, doing away with legislative?

          • the_abecedarian@piefed.socialEnglish
            1·
            10 hours 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.

            • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
              2·
              6 hours ago

              In a hierarchical society, those on top will use any existing govt structures to their benefit

              That’s exactly why there’s separation of power! The idea being that executive, legislative and judiciary are of equal power. One can block or strenghten the behaviour of the other on an independant, case-by-case basis. Those properties should, imo be strenghtened, not weakened.

              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.

              Samesees. My utopia would be liquid democracy.

              But even here, there would be law! It’s a necessary good, to combat arbitrary prosecution, imo.

              • the_abecedarian@piefed.socialEnglish
                2·
                10 hours ago

                Cool yeah I need to look into liquid democracy more.

                I’m sorta ambiguous about the law – it is always a blunt tool in that it can’t possibly cover every situation (despite judicial contortions) and every person’s particular circumstances. It ages badly and can be hard to keep it up with changing times.

                At this point, though, I’m willing to accept laws written and passed by community assemblies, covering their community. It’d be a huge step forward anyway.