Personally I find the legal system slithly unjust, as money and assets buys courts, lawyers, better PR and largely can render court cases against large corporations, socially asset powerful (financial and social coruption) and of course the dangerous monopoly of violence of the police and mob/gangs irrelevant and impossible. The ability to make people responsible to their asset percentage, instead of merely fining on a set numerical value, would increase the governments interest in controlling those above the law, while limiting the overly powerful at inhibiting the ingenious new entrepreneur from challenging old dominant corporations with insiders within government regulation boards and other groups no longer protecting consumers and the commons. Thus, the legal defense would be equal in value with the wealthier legally able to pay more for their defense or prosecution, only if they subsidized the others defense or prosecution to equal that of theirs. Also the possible settlement would be equal to a percentage of the overall assets of each party, which would reduce court cases on trivial matters, while increase the power of the courts by addressing large asset cases.
First the ability to outspend the other legal team is not fair, nor is it just, as the law should merely stipulate that each has equal (financing or assets to spend on the case) representation to find the facts and the correct legal findings. Also the fines should be alloted on a percental total asset (fixed and liquid) value. Certain basic assets for median of the community could be expempt, such as personal house/car if the median family owns their house and car for example. The industry side would allow exemption of fixed assets on a median for the community businesses and certain investments in relation to median business operations. Thus a large corporation would not sue an individual worth less than 100,000, as the costs could not be recouped even with a victory, while the corporation would limit its asset value or not be able to expand profitablly unless it was very socially conscious and respectful of laws, the community and the well being of the commons. The greater the wealth bestows greater responsibility to follow the law and not abuse the dominant position of wealth.
This would greatly limit the too big to fail and too big to regulate legal persons, as society and the courts would be able to easily fine a corporation or indivudal abusing their dominant position or breaking a law, as they would be able to cut into a percentage of those malignant societal member. Currently large agriculture, energy, banks, and countless individuals can literally break the law at will, paying fines that do not even make these illegal activities unprofitable, rather condone them with a small numerical fine, instead of a real asset percental fine. Imagine a too big to fail bank or ceo facing an investor law suit, where the prize is 5% of assets of the individual or company. This will really make management and firms interested in the shareholders and running a business for consumers and the commons. The brazilians make their management responsible for any failings or bankruptcy of the company, so that their houses, personal assets etc are all on the line with company assets at the bankruptcy block. This inclusion of management's personal assets to their work leaves them conservative and not interested financial turmoil or the opportunity to cut and run with huge severance packages right before the company goes under.
Naturally, this idea has a big problem, the assetless class of indebted and asset poor, who have a negative asset balance. They could in theory break laws without paying anything, yet the loaners or debt owners ie owners of the indebt would pay the fines, as they vouch for them and provide credit. This would limit the bad credit or make bankers really think before loaning with backround checks from the community. Also this would decrease the time banks keep debt and the length of debt accumulation in general, so that loans and debt are not a life long institution, unless banks want to take responsibility for their clients, rather a simple community based short term allocation of capital for industrious ingenious business ideas. Naturally, the bank can employee these people with salaries and training, so that the banks can recoup their loan, if the debtor has problems.
This would make the wealthy responsible for those lacking assets, which could create a second class of semi indentured servitude. While I think this would be better than our current debt servitude, the banks and wealthy would be liable for their servants, liable to labor laws, and responsible for these servants repaying. Thus responsibility would fall on those that make society, the asseted class, while the assetless class will be trained, taught, and raised to be productive members of society, while the asset class would not overstretch their dominant position for fear of society's laws that can quickly send an asseted individual to poverty, if they break laws.
Another danger is repeat crimes by the assetless class, which would not be punished by jailtime, instead servitude to the public or wealthy or whoever would train, pay, and employee these individuals. This would limit repeat crime, as the criminals will be trained both to work, live and produce in society instead of just sitting behind bars. For violent or societally perverse crimes, the worst punishment would be banishment from the community and state, whereby appeal can be tried by family and friends after the found guilty individual has left or complied with the law. The punishment upon returning is death with a 2 week grace period for family and friends and a final review of the case, as that makes banishment permenant with the ability to take ones leave of loved ones optional. This is by far the best deterent in my opinion, as it cuts off family and leaves one without the history and security of community, which one forfited by violent crimes that endangered the community. Meanwhile the banished one can start anew, which really is the boon for the criminal. A state will accept them for their skills or just because they need people, whereby the person can try to reintegrate into a society and be productive without the history of problems with individuals of old.
In theory, the societally unacceptable individuals will eventually run out of places to go, whereby making pirates and lawless societies a problem. Yet I think that state competition is positive, in that the elite are responsible to maintain a prosperous society, which can result in a lawless society with refugees and in the end those incapable leaders being left to live short gruesome and sad existences. While states and communities may maintain a UN force or a millitary to minimize such societies or viruses, this may be a necessary destructive force, as some literally prefer that society or are unable to respect others and the commons.
The use of citizenship will become irrelevant, as deziens or residents will have rights to vote on banishment, laws, governance etc. This would allow for more mobility of legal persons to their ideal state without restrictions, unless they are banished of course. Citizenship is granted by birth or blood, which punishes and imprisons innocent babies, while banishment would be a result of indivudals actions, so a just reason to bar entry, instead of merely random luck of birth. Once living, paying taxes, and being aknowledged by a percentale of the community, as a good member of society, one can be admitted as a resident with special rights to vote, make policy, establish rules and mantain a prosperous society. These rights would not be permanent, as anyone considered by the community to be a danger to the commons, failing to contribute taxes or societies well being, or having emigrated may loss this residency and ability to actively participate and affect policy. This would limit their rights to participate in civil society, yet expelling or banishing indviduals remains with the courts, not with politics, so laws must be broken and the community must find its existence threatened.
Basically human society must cut out those who hurt the commons and steal from others to amass assets, which are not obtained from ingenious productive actions, instead by abuse of a dominant position. Anyone knows that, like mitocondria, no society can allow cancer cells to grow or hugely subsidized companies without having the actual productive parts cutting those unnecessary viruses out to improve society's effective and just management of resources.
I question the equal representation and equal responsibility of legal (including corporations) persons, as it has been shown that a dominat position limits both the courts from judging, the government from regulating, individuals and smaller businesses from providing the opportunity for justice. Without equality of assets in the legal system one can not have equal representation and without equal responsibility (percental asset) one can not hold each person responsible for their breaking the law. Meanwhile the current laws allow for certain persons to remain above the reach of law, which does not mirror a just society, rather a corrupt society on the verge of having the productive members erradicating the virus or the society collapsing due to the over consumption by unproductive cancerous members of society.
First the ability to outspend the other legal team is not fair, nor is it just, as the law should merely stipulate that each has equal (financing or assets to spend on the case) representation to find the facts and the correct legal findings. Also the fines should be alloted on a percental total asset (fixed and liquid) value. Certain basic assets for median of the community could be expempt, such as personal house/car if the median family owns their house and car for example. The industry side would allow exemption of fixed assets on a median for the community businesses and certain investments in relation to median business operations. Thus a large corporation would not sue an individual worth less than 100,000, as the costs could not be recouped even with a victory, while the corporation would limit its asset value or not be able to expand profitablly unless it was very socially conscious and respectful of laws, the community and the well being of the commons. The greater the wealth bestows greater responsibility to follow the law and not abuse the dominant position of wealth.
This would greatly limit the too big to fail and too big to regulate legal persons, as society and the courts would be able to easily fine a corporation or indivudal abusing their dominant position or breaking a law, as they would be able to cut into a percentage of those malignant societal member. Currently large agriculture, energy, banks, and countless individuals can literally break the law at will, paying fines that do not even make these illegal activities unprofitable, rather condone them with a small numerical fine, instead of a real asset percental fine. Imagine a too big to fail bank or ceo facing an investor law suit, where the prize is 5% of assets of the individual or company. This will really make management and firms interested in the shareholders and running a business for consumers and the commons. The brazilians make their management responsible for any failings or bankruptcy of the company, so that their houses, personal assets etc are all on the line with company assets at the bankruptcy block. This inclusion of management's personal assets to their work leaves them conservative and not interested financial turmoil or the opportunity to cut and run with huge severance packages right before the company goes under.
Naturally, this idea has a big problem, the assetless class of indebted and asset poor, who have a negative asset balance. They could in theory break laws without paying anything, yet the loaners or debt owners ie owners of the indebt would pay the fines, as they vouch for them and provide credit. This would limit the bad credit or make bankers really think before loaning with backround checks from the community. Also this would decrease the time banks keep debt and the length of debt accumulation in general, so that loans and debt are not a life long institution, unless banks want to take responsibility for their clients, rather a simple community based short term allocation of capital for industrious ingenious business ideas. Naturally, the bank can employee these people with salaries and training, so that the banks can recoup their loan, if the debtor has problems.
This would make the wealthy responsible for those lacking assets, which could create a second class of semi indentured servitude. While I think this would be better than our current debt servitude, the banks and wealthy would be liable for their servants, liable to labor laws, and responsible for these servants repaying. Thus responsibility would fall on those that make society, the asseted class, while the assetless class will be trained, taught, and raised to be productive members of society, while the asset class would not overstretch their dominant position for fear of society's laws that can quickly send an asseted individual to poverty, if they break laws.
Another danger is repeat crimes by the assetless class, which would not be punished by jailtime, instead servitude to the public or wealthy or whoever would train, pay, and employee these individuals. This would limit repeat crime, as the criminals will be trained both to work, live and produce in society instead of just sitting behind bars. For violent or societally perverse crimes, the worst punishment would be banishment from the community and state, whereby appeal can be tried by family and friends after the found guilty individual has left or complied with the law. The punishment upon returning is death with a 2 week grace period for family and friends and a final review of the case, as that makes banishment permenant with the ability to take ones leave of loved ones optional. This is by far the best deterent in my opinion, as it cuts off family and leaves one without the history and security of community, which one forfited by violent crimes that endangered the community. Meanwhile the banished one can start anew, which really is the boon for the criminal. A state will accept them for their skills or just because they need people, whereby the person can try to reintegrate into a society and be productive without the history of problems with individuals of old.
In theory, the societally unacceptable individuals will eventually run out of places to go, whereby making pirates and lawless societies a problem. Yet I think that state competition is positive, in that the elite are responsible to maintain a prosperous society, which can result in a lawless society with refugees and in the end those incapable leaders being left to live short gruesome and sad existences. While states and communities may maintain a UN force or a millitary to minimize such societies or viruses, this may be a necessary destructive force, as some literally prefer that society or are unable to respect others and the commons.
The use of citizenship will become irrelevant, as deziens or residents will have rights to vote on banishment, laws, governance etc. This would allow for more mobility of legal persons to their ideal state without restrictions, unless they are banished of course. Citizenship is granted by birth or blood, which punishes and imprisons innocent babies, while banishment would be a result of indivudals actions, so a just reason to bar entry, instead of merely random luck of birth. Once living, paying taxes, and being aknowledged by a percentale of the community, as a good member of society, one can be admitted as a resident with special rights to vote, make policy, establish rules and mantain a prosperous society. These rights would not be permanent, as anyone considered by the community to be a danger to the commons, failing to contribute taxes or societies well being, or having emigrated may loss this residency and ability to actively participate and affect policy. This would limit their rights to participate in civil society, yet expelling or banishing indviduals remains with the courts, not with politics, so laws must be broken and the community must find its existence threatened.
Basically human society must cut out those who hurt the commons and steal from others to amass assets, which are not obtained from ingenious productive actions, instead by abuse of a dominant position. Anyone knows that, like mitocondria, no society can allow cancer cells to grow or hugely subsidized companies without having the actual productive parts cutting those unnecessary viruses out to improve society's effective and just management of resources.
I question the equal representation and equal responsibility of legal (including corporations) persons, as it has been shown that a dominat position limits both the courts from judging, the government from regulating, individuals and smaller businesses from providing the opportunity for justice. Without equality of assets in the legal system one can not have equal representation and without equal responsibility (percental asset) one can not hold each person responsible for their breaking the law. Meanwhile the current laws allow for certain persons to remain above the reach of law, which does not mirror a just society, rather a corrupt society on the verge of having the productive members erradicating the virus or the society collapsing due to the over consumption by unproductive cancerous members of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment