• masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Court costs for appeals should be based on the net worth of the appealing entity.

    In other words, you are proposing to actually break the (so-called) “justice system” so that it cannot work as designed.

    You do understand that the (so-called) “justice system” was designed to keep you under control while enabling the parasite class (of which Trump is a proud member) to essentially do whatever they feel like and has never existed for any other reason?

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.

          No system is perfect, and no system is equal, and most importantly, people in a system will adapt to take advantage of the system. That’s why it’s useless to go “all the way”, the system is there to keep us from just clubbing each other over the head whenever we feel wronged. It’s much better that we have a dynamic and living system that can respond to loopholes and attempts to thwart it. Incremental change is the way the system should react.

          It is a challenging question though. How do you afford the “little man” their right to appeal rulings, without giving the “big man” unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.

            Where did you get this? At the local Fascist Fortune Cookie store? Hollywood, maybe?

            Where is your evidence of this?

            How do you afford the “little man” their right to appeal rulings, without giving the “big man” unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?

            If you are unwilling to do away with the very systems that are designed to protect and enable the “big men” the answer is simple - you can’t.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Ελληνικά
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Oh, I must be a fascist because I think that going all the way back means going to a time before organized society and a structured code of law? Is that really where your mind jumps to when someone disagrees with you? Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!

              Ad-hominems aside. How far back is “far back” enough for you that we could build a more just and equitable system? We talking Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? 10 commandments?

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                organized society and a structured code of law?

                Where is the evidence that led you to conflate these two?

                Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!

                What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives? Assume the person doing the regurgitating is not beholden to fascist views?

                I assume this is the first time you’ve been exposed to the fact that “Law & Order” narratives have always been the narrative espoused by the fascist element inherent to the liberal nation state long before Mussolini even gave fascism a name?

                • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  Ελληνικά
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives?

                  I have yet to see a fascist argue that every justice system has inherent inequality, and that the only way to fix it is to have a dynamic and living system than can respond to the changes in society around it. I don’t think that is a fascist view. Fascist by definition put all authority in an immutable entity that rules with an iron fist with the sole purpose of benefiting one particular group of people.

                  You might consider reading up on it a bit before you go start spreading it over everything that doesn’t agree with your somehow very narrow yet ephemeral definition of a just society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

                  Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive unless you are willing to specify what in your mind, was the most recent equitable justice system in human history. You won’t though, because you haven’t thought about it that much, which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

                  • masquenox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    inherent inequality,

                    As dictated by whom? You?

                    I don’t think that is a fascist view.

                    You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?

                    Fascist by definition

                    Fascism doesn’t have a definition, liberal. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.

                    Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand…

                    You might consider reading up on… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

                    …I’ll take that as a yes.

                    Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive

                    What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?

                    which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

                    Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?