this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
917 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

60123 readers
2666 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 43 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Our founding morons were the most naive idiots in existence... Sure they lived in a different time, but how could you possibly look back at any time in history and say "it's ok only moral people get positions of power so we'll play by the honor system."

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 30 points 4 months ago (4 children)

US citizens give way WAY too much credit to their founders. Calling them "founding fathers" almost sounds like it's a religion. I'm sure they were smart guys in their time, but they too were flawed and made a shit tonne of mistakes, like everybody else. Just fix those mistakes already.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's totally cringe when people call those slavers their daddies. Definitely a symptom of a much larger, wacko cult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They were fans of Montesquieu, but they also thought the VP should be the runner up in the election and that self interest would prevent one group from attaining too much power

In this case for example: the judge would want to avoid being labeled as partial because he would ruin his family name and lose his profession

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's not just that. People fought duels over their honor in the past. We don't have duels anymore, so we shouldn't rely on a judge to recuse themselves.

It is a founding concept of European law that no one should be a judge in their own case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 months ago

Duelling wouldn’t apply to this case

For obvious reasons a judge wouldn’t duel parties in a civil (or criminal) case but also the judge would be ruining his own honour

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

yep. be specific - Committee of Five

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Most of them were barely old enough to be fathers. Sure you had a few old guys, but most of the idea men were in their 20s or early 30s.

[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

The Founding Fathers could not have anticipated that honor and shame would be totally foreign concepts to a sitting president and congress. In the 1790s for example, pistol duels were the leading cause of death for US navy midshipmen.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 4 months ago

This is curiously noteworthy in The Federalist Papers. Hamilton puts a lot of faith in the human conscience all the while pointing out that if men were angels we would need no government noting that we do need checks and balances.

The Electoral College is a dead giveaway that they didn't trust the public to self-govern, and hence there needed to be back doors where gentlemen (men of means) could override the system should someone like Jimmy Carter get elected.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 months ago

The founding slavers were literally slavers. Their goal was simply to maintain their violent control. It's worked great for 200+ years.

[–] HoustonHenry@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't think anyone born back then could've forseen the sheer stupidity that is MAGA

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The original dictator preceeded the existence of the US and refused to recuse himself once given power.

Their shortedsightedness is not excusable.

[–] HoustonHenry@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Agreed, no one should be above the law

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

Maga is the rightful heir to the founding slavers.

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because they were the progressive ideologues of their day.

And were also often stymied from giving the constitution real teeth by the big slave holding states as well, don’t forget. The right wing was doing shenanigans at the very founding of the country.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 2 points 4 months ago

The right wing was doing shenanigans at the very founding of the country.

It's almost like we're literally never going to not be dealing with their bullshit...

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

They had faith that people who got to power would use it in good faith (and get there in good faith) while or after having fought a war with a power that they believed wasn't being used in good faith.

I just wonder how much longer this system can hold up for. It's got different parts that conflict with itself but different people value different parts of it to the point that getting rid of any of it is going to be, ah, a bit rough.