lemm.ee

1 point

2 months ago

Some kind of institution with final decision making ability for disputes is needed, yes.

How would I have it structured? Something along these lines:

The body itself is entirely transparent with all meetings and matters of discussion open to the public
The body makes decisions by consensus
The body is created to deal with a single issue and immediately disbanded thereafter.
No single person can serve on such a body more than once.
The members of the body are chosen by some kind of open, democratic process.
There are otherwise no restrictions, requirements, or limitations upon the capacity of who can be on such a body (e.g. no age requirements, no citizenship requirements, etc.)

I’m not an expert and these aren’t exhaustive or anything, just a few ideas. Obviously the rules shouldn’t be decided by a single person, they should be decided by consensus.

report

Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM

[ - ]

-1 points

2 months ago

Wouldn’t that require everyone to have extensive knowledge of the laws of the land? There’s a reason people go to law school for years. You can’t simplify a nation’s laws enough to have your system unless there was only one law and it was ‘whatever the kind says is illegal is illegal.’ You couldn’t even establish proper courtroom procedure that way because everyone would have to know what is and isn’t legally permissible.

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

No, not really - these kinds of decisions would be more along the lines of finding a fair resolution to a dispute, rather than the interpretation of specific law. That sort of thing is done with the intent to oppress, rather than remediate.

We basically have this system already for lots of crimes in certain legal systems based on the commonwealth, it’s called a jury.

report

Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM

[ - ]

0 points

2 months ago

So there also shouldn’t be laws? Because otherwise I’m not sure how matters of law should be settled like this if people aren’t familiar with the laws.

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

Sure, society needs rules, but they don’t need to be all that complex, and the real nuances or loopholes are better handled as individual cases

report

Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

I think you underestimate how many laws you need to keep a nation functional.

Even Hammurabi had 282 written laws and his was a ‘whatever the king says is illegal is illegal’ empire.

You need laws to cover everything from murder to product safety to child custody after divorce. And none of those are able to solved simply every time because many cases have a lot of nuance.

On top of that, as I said, you need a lot of rules covering courtroom procedures. Expecting a random citizen to understand things like when something can be presented as evidence and what sort of questions a witness can be asked is expecting too much of them.

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

You make a great point - you do need a lot of laws… if the intent is to oppress people. Less so if you want a fair and equitable society.

You’re not really engaging with what I’m saying because you’re so assured and confident in your world view.

We don’t have to live in a hierarchical society where we are owned by our rulers. We can create a different world with our own rules.

I don’t know what those rules should be - no single person possibly ever could. My position is that the world we have is fundamentally, structurally, and intentionally unequal, unjust, and impossible to reform. We need to depose those who have created and enforced the current system and replace them with a new, fairer system designed from the ground up by all of us, not a new replacement elite.

It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, but if we don’t end capitalism, we will instead live to see the end of the modern human civilisation.

report