JamesHackerMP

Define "sensible legal system".

Edward Luttwak described a modern state as having a permanent part, and a more transient part (the in situ "government" of the day). So "the state" can better be described perhaps as the permanent machinery of government, i.e., the professional civil service and the standing armed forces.

I learned in a poli sci class that the state is "the organization possessing a monopoly over the exercise of force within a given territorial boundary." Then again, that could just as easily be a government, by that definition, wouldn't you think? As Louis XIV of France said, "l'etat, c'est moi!" (I am the state.)

Not only that but you can't just change it now that our justice system has been based on juries for hundreds of years (not America's specifically, but its English predecessor).

We're being led up the garden path. That's the most concise description possible.

Yes, but it is very time consuming. Every time you pick up a newspaper and read it, do you have the time to check every fact in every story you care to read? In the US, this is difficult to do. The Supreme Court rules that you have to prove that the newspaper (or whatever media outlet) was deliberately trying to smear you. You have to prove its intent, in court, and that's extremely difficult to do. They have ruled that being a little wreckless in presenting their facts is not the same as intent to ruin someone's reputation through lies. That's not necessarily my opinion, but that is what the Supreme Court has said. In a way, it does make sense. Otherwise, the courts would have the power to veto any news story they felt like, and that's not good in a free society. It's one of those times you have to take the good with the bad.

Are you sure it's not because they're telling you what you want to hear? Nothing against you for watching Fox, I don't care what anyone's political leanings are; but in America today, whether one watches CNN, MSNBC, or Fox (or anyone else for that matter) depends in part on what they want to hear. It's not because you (or any human being in particular) is a fool, but because humans tend to seek validation for their own beliefs. That is part of the problem. I do however agree with your last statement. Always better to get a variety of sources and read between the lines.

Also, part of the problem is that we are incapable of checking every single fact in a news story with raw data of some sort.

I checked out some of the sources on this website. I was surprised to see Al jazeera has a "slight bias" to the left. This organization (the media bias site) must have a pretty high bullshit tolerance level.

Right, and polygraphs are not admissible in court. TSS: a jury duty summons is likely to be met with "Oh, damn it I have to be a f****** juror! How the hell can I get out of this?" That's a more accurate assessment. But to me, it's an important thing. I cannot imagine living somewhere where the decisions of imprisoning me for the rest of my life are made by a judge--or even several--might have come into the court room a little pissed off that afternoon, rather than a group of 12 people who have to agree, even if they might not be "experts". We've had juries since the Magna Carta. There's also a distinction here: in countries that use juries (at least in the States) there is a demarcation between something which is a question of FACT (decided by the jury) or something which is a question of LAW (decided by the judge).

I know many different people who are on different portions of the left/right spectrum. I have to be honest with you; the hypocrisy and small-mindedness of people anywhere is mind boggling. The Left talk progress and open mindedness, and then suffer temporary amnesia thereof when it comes to the most important kind of diversity: thought. The Right talk about freedom and personal accountability, and suffer temporary amnesia when it comes to the freedom of their opponents. (And don't get me started on their religious views, but we've already sparred over those.) Still, it amuses me how many on the left speak of the right as the only culprits in our society of political hypocrisy; and when the right do precisely the same.

It's difficult these days to know what sources of media to trust. Some other threads have been started on particular genres of news--the main stream media, or particular sources--but the bigger question is HOW do you know what or whom to trust? What makes a source trustworthy, anyway? It's easy to say "oh, because they're telling the truth." But how can you tell? We sit here at our computers, isolated from the world at large, and a small cadre of journalists (or other nefarious persons) are making the decisions for us of what "truth" actually is. Part of the problem, of course, is that people don't always want to believe the truth, they want to hear what they want to hear or read what they want to read. It's so easy to deceive. And we all do that, even if some of us would like to think that we happen to be the smartest person in the room; the one person among many capable of actually seeing through the bullshit. But that is unlikely, as there are so few people like that. At the end of the day we're all equally vulnerable to bullshit. So how can you tell who is reputable and who isn't? Whom--and what--can we trust, and how do we know?

Kind of my point. We don't see enough to make valid judgments. I think that gives me an idea for another post, in fact...

ohhhhhhh OK

Now reading Byzantium: The Early Centuries by J.J. Norwich. First volume of a series of three. Pretty entertaining, if somewhat old fashioned in its approach.

I don't understand what you mean by a "national state that wasn't..."

I was going to say the United States (but I was joking of course). Also, I didnt mean to repeat my above post like that. Typing on a tablet is a pain in the a$s. Oh speaking of Quebec:

You know, one solution to the problem would be just to join the---oh, nevermind.

You know, one solution to the problem would be just to join the---oh, nevermind.

I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with the topic?

You know I'm really not sure. But both the western and eastern imperial armies were able to cover some pretty impressive ground when deployed so I am thinking that might not have been much of a factor. But I could be wrong.

You mean something like in the TV show Jericho that was on in 2006? Yeah, sure that makes sense. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805663/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 There are other ways to fight the proletariat than blowing them up. Their corporations wouldn't function without them. Oh, and with money gone, how can they still be billionaires? Geeze. They've already got the world by the balls, why cut off the balls? Excuse my vulgar metaphor.

Yeah, I don't care about his religious beliefs, either. He was a great mind no matter what. You can be an atheist and be a great mind.

slightly off topic: before Osama bin Laden was found and killed, they used to call the E500 note the "bin laden": because nobody's seen it but everyone knows it exists.

Are any of you familiar with John Julius Norwich's Byzantium series? He wrote it in three volumes ("Byzantium: the Early Centuries", "Byzantium: the Apogee" and "Byzantium:the Decline and Fall") but later condensed them into a single paperback, "A Short History of Byzantium". It's a fascinating read, though I have only got through the first volume (and before that, the short version of the whole). Funny how they'd slit people's noses to keep them off the throne.