politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Let's be straight. The civil court system was created to manage interactions between people. At the lowest level you had the town judge who referees disputes between people in the town. That expended to be things between towns, then states, then countries. Most interactions between people that need an official third party is commerce. Which means corporations these days as they are the majority of commerce.
And the reason for having someone referee disputes was because commerce was so important to the sucsess of any town, state, or country that without commerce everyone in that entity would suffer significantly and the entity would eventually cease to exist. So that system isn't designed to be fair, or even look out for people. It is designed to protect commerce, and since corporations are the majority of that, they are what it protects. The root of the problem is that commerce is so critical. That won't change for a long time. But people often wish it would.
Commerce is not what people are critical of. It's the fruits of commerce and how they are distributed. Those who have almost nothing to do with commerce reap all the rewards from it. It's those profit-takers who are protected by the courts. The business entity itself is just a convenient way for them to obfuscate the process. They're run by people who get better treatment because they have money and they only have money because for some reason we've collectively agreed that the people doing the actual work don't deserve the fruits of their labor.
Well, they would argue that they fronted the money and thus took all the risk. And maybe at one point that was actually true. But since the gov worked for them... over time it worked to reduce the risk. I agree the result is disliked, but I was talking about how it got to where it was, why it came into being, and that we shouldn't expect it to be anything but what it is. We just need a balancing force to counter it.