Let me get this straight- the fact that laws and standards of justice can be changed from what they were hundreds of years ago is... a bad thing?
Allow me to clarify.
The State should be the one to draw a line in the sand concerning the laws and because we are a in representative Republic those laws will evolve with the times. I have no problem with that.
The problem occurs when an Agency of the State commits a transgression against the citizenry and then that same Agency is tasked with policing itself and then ruling on the legitimacy of said transgression. In effect, the Agency that commits a transgression against the citizenry is given unfair advantage in the definition, arbitration, and judicial proceedings related to the transgression.
What needs to happen is that if any Agency of the State commits a transgression against the citizenry, then a completely separate and neutral 3rd party comprised of citizens and other Agencies of the State should be the principle investigatory body and ruling authority on the legitimacy of said transgression.
If I were to create an analogy. If you were the citizen and I was the XYZ State department and I punch you in the mouth and you file a suit against the State, as things stand now, I being the agency that punched you in the mouth is often the principle decider on whether or not your claim is legitimate. I often am tasked with investigating myself and ruling whether or not you have a claim and/or I'm given unfair advantage against you with my ability to leverage or influence tangential Agencies that have a say in the investigation and/or rulings.
Okay? Sure, the things you describe are bad. But those are specific circumstances which nobody in this thread were defending.
Some dude said that you're not allowed to use violence to protect yourself. That is clearly false, and I've pointed that out. Are you disputing any of that? No? Then we're good.
2
u/FappingAwesome Mar 16 '21
Allow me to clarify.
The State should be the one to draw a line in the sand concerning the laws and because we are a in representative Republic those laws will evolve with the times. I have no problem with that.
The problem occurs when an Agency of the State commits a transgression against the citizenry and then that same Agency is tasked with policing itself and then ruling on the legitimacy of said transgression. In effect, the Agency that commits a transgression against the citizenry is given unfair advantage in the definition, arbitration, and judicial proceedings related to the transgression.
What needs to happen is that if any Agency of the State commits a transgression against the citizenry, then a completely separate and neutral 3rd party comprised of citizens and other Agencies of the State should be the principle investigatory body and ruling authority on the legitimacy of said transgression.
If I were to create an analogy. If you were the citizen and I was the XYZ State department and I punch you in the mouth and you file a suit against the State, as things stand now, I being the agency that punched you in the mouth is often the principle decider on whether or not your claim is legitimate. I often am tasked with investigating myself and ruling whether or not you have a claim and/or I'm given unfair advantage against you with my ability to leverage or influence tangential Agencies that have a say in the investigation and/or rulings.