When did you realize that all laws are made to benefit the rich and/or oppress the rest of us, and a politician's job is to write the laws and sell them to the voters?
That has certainly been the case in some places, though by no means all of them. Enforcement is also a separate issue to the law itself.
But to provide some maybe better examples, do laws that enshrine workers' rights to form a union only serve to benefit the rich? Laws that limit donations to political parties? I really don't think you can make that argument for all laws.
In many cases it is not that the laws are written in a way that precludes prosecution, however they are written in a way knowing it is unlikely to ever bring prosecution against those in the Epstein class.
The US is a hellhole with a billionaire class living above the law, sure, not arguing with that. I guess maybe I should have assumed US defaultism for this question.
But OP made a blanket statement about all laws, and didn't specify a country either. If your username is any indication you're a Marxist. How do you think a Marxist state would work without laws?
Now one could argue all laws that could possibly exist do this to some extent. And some people would think you're correct, but realistically the word society is synonymous with rules, which itself is synonymous with laws, so no one seriously believes that any group of more than one person would exist without some level of legality; though that last line itself is incredibly contentious given the hang up some people have on 'if there are laws then surely there must be a state to enact and enforce them -- and to those people I say actually read your literature, either anarchism or communism.
Social cohesion is important for a smoothly running business. Unpunished rape creates problems on the shop room floor. Or to put it another way, rape gets punished extrajudicially in ways that are not good for business or social cohesion in general.
Few years ago. Right before this phase of the genocide in Palestine. I had an idea of it before that but I wouldn't have called it a conscious thought until then.
@DarrinBrunner the fact that the 47 U.S. President is still in power at the time of posting, and that zoning laws make urban environments sterile and unsafe for everyone, and only a conglomerate of companies benefit from this urban sprawl
Yup. I actually know and work with politicians. It's a sales job alright; the legislation is pretty secondary regardless of who it benefits. You can see laws that fuck everyone rich or poor being passed sometimes, if they sound good in a speech.
I don't disagree that some are like that, and the only reason tax laws in many countries in particular are so complicated are because of politicians squeezing in exceptions that benefit them.
But it's far, far from "all laws". The quality of life and legality for average people has changed a huge amount for the better. Even in my lifetime in the UK. When I was a child, it was illegal to be homosexual. You were openly discriminated for being black, Irish, foreign, fat, old, young. Now there are laws to protect against that. My wife's mother had to get her brother to sign the paperwork to buy a house because even in the 1950s, women couldn't get a mortgage without a man guaranteeing it. Those are just a few examples.
If you're American, then yeah, maybe your system is skewed far to the rich beyond what most countries do. It's long been the case that justice in the US doesn't apply to the rich, but the US is not everywhere and not everything, despite what the current news cycles might tell you.
I was agreeing with you, FWIW. They're not puppets run by some shadowy group, and what they actually do is very public (if you bother to look). My country televises parliament, and publishes all legislation. The US does something similar. It's also easy to get facetime with representatives, if you're willing to knock on doors and attend boring meetings.
Over the long run, conditions have improved, in spite of representative democracy being a cluster-fuck in the short term.
33 Comments
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 129d
2008 was when the conclusion was unavoidable
The Iraq invasion and all the Halliburton bullshit was when I began to realize that the justice system truly has two separate tracks.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 129d
They don't always write the laws, sometimes they let lobbyists do that and pass them without reading
LowtierComputer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 128d
Often
PonyOfWar@pawb.social · 16 pts · 129d
I guess I haven't yet. Maybe you can help me: How do laws against, for example, rape, only benefit the rich while oppressing the rest of us?
bunkyprewster@startrek.website · 41 pts · 129d
They are enforced against poors. While rich rapists walk free.
PonyOfWar@pawb.social · 18 pts · 129d
That has certainly been the case in some places, though by no means all of them. Enforcement is also a separate issue to the law itself.
But to provide some maybe better examples, do laws that enshrine workers' rights to form a union only serve to benefit the rich? Laws that limit donations to political parties? I really don't think you can make that argument for all laws.
CanadaPlus@futurology.today · 3 pts · 129d
Then that's not a problem with the law, but with enforcement.
If there was whatever glorious socialist revolution tomorrow, that law would stay.
marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today · 22 pts · 129d
Donald Trump violently raped his ex-wife because his hair plugs hurt. She was bruised for days, according to her book.
He saw no jail time. Not even a charge.
Not one Epstein Client has seen jail time.
The vast majority of cases against the Affluent fail to secure jail time, if they're even brought at all.
In many cases it is not that the laws are written in a way that precludes prosecution, however they are written in a way knowing it is unlikely to ever bring prosecution against those in the Epstein class.
PonyOfWar@pawb.social · 8 pts · 129d
The US is a hellhole with a billionaire class living above the law, sure, not arguing with that. I guess maybe I should have assumed US defaultism for this question.
But OP made a blanket statement about all laws, and didn't specify a country either. If your username is any indication you're a Marxist. How do you think a Marxist state would work without laws?
marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 129d
One can assume they're drawing from current material conditions, and not meaning to disparage the theoretical platonic form of 'laws;' specifically the fact that it doesn't matter which country you pick (with few exceptions that do try their best), under capitalism those with capital statistically make the laws, and specifically make them to bind the working class while not expecting them to ever affect themselves.
Now one could argue all laws that could possibly exist do this to some extent. And some people would think you're correct, but realistically the word society is synonymous with rules, which itself is synonymous with laws, so no one seriously believes that any group of more than one person would exist without some level of legality; though that last line itself is incredibly contentious given the hang up some people have on 'if there are laws then surely there must be a state to enact and enforce them -- and to those people I say actually read your literature, either anarchism or communism.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 129d
Social cohesion is important for a smoothly running business. Unpunished rape creates problems on the shop room floor. Or to put it another way, rape gets punished extrajudicially in ways that are not good for business or social cohesion in general.
renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net · 2 pts · 129d
PonyOfWar@pawb.social · 1 pts · 129d
No way you haven't read the other replies to my comment.
knee@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 129d
Late 70's, just after I started working. My then Union rep. ( Remember them?) was a good teacher and saw Thatcher for exactly what she was.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 129d
Around 12 when I started reading communist and black panther literature.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 129d
LifeLikeLady@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 129d
There's literally not a law or crime the rich can't buy them selves out of.
LifeLikeLady@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 129d
12 maybe 13. I'm 38 now.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 129d
Few years ago. Right before this phase of the genocide in Palestine. I had an idea of it before that but I wouldn't have called it a conscious thought until then.
FriedRice@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 129d
Just now! Thank you for youre inside knowledge!
reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 129d
2016
Maeve@kbin.earth · 4 pts · 129d
Late nineties.
EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 129d
Late 80s here
Reagan was a fucking cunt.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 129d
1890s or 1790s?
HubertManne@piefed.social · 4 pts · 129d
Never because of the term all.
Mrkawfee@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 128d
Law school
sangeteria@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 129d
2023
Denizenn@mastodon.social · 2 pts · 129d
@DarrinBrunner the fact that the 47 U.S. President is still in power at the time of posting, and that zoning laws make urban environments sterile and unsafe for everyone, and only a conglomerate of companies benefit from this urban sprawl
FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website · 2 pts · 129d
Not yet.
BandanaBug@piefed.social · 2 pts · 129d
Are you from the US by any chance?
digdilem@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 129d
I understand why someone might think that, but it's not true, except perhaps in the most corrupt of countries.
CanadaPlus@futurology.today · 2 pts · 129d
Yup. I actually know and work with politicians. It's a sales job alright; the legislation is pretty secondary regardless of who it benefits. You can see laws that fuck everyone rich or poor being passed sometimes, if they sound good in a speech.
digdilem@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 129d
I don't disagree that some are like that, and the only reason tax laws in many countries in particular are so complicated are because of politicians squeezing in exceptions that benefit them.
But it's far, far from "all laws". The quality of life and legality for average people has changed a huge amount for the better. Even in my lifetime in the UK. When I was a child, it was illegal to be homosexual. You were openly discriminated for being black, Irish, foreign, fat, old, young. Now there are laws to protect against that. My wife's mother had to get her brother to sign the paperwork to buy a house because even in the 1950s, women couldn't get a mortgage without a man guaranteeing it. Those are just a few examples.
If you're American, then yeah, maybe your system is skewed far to the rich beyond what most countries do. It's long been the case that justice in the US doesn't apply to the rich, but the US is not everywhere and not everything, despite what the current news cycles might tell you.
CanadaPlus@futurology.today · 3 pts · 129d
I was agreeing with you, FWIW. They're not puppets run by some shadowy group, and what they actually do is very public (if you bother to look). My country televises parliament, and publishes all legislation. The US does something similar. It's also easy to get facetime with representatives, if you're willing to knock on doors and attend boring meetings.
Over the long run, conditions have improved, in spite of representative democracy being a cluster-fuck in the short term.
VoxAliorum@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 128d
This statement without context (country, time, etc.) is absolutely false and therefore worthless.