In Canada and the UK, sovereign immunity is criminal and civil liability applying to the king or queen, but not to the head of the government as far as I can tell, the prime minister and so on. One of the things about sovereign immunity is that it's immunity unless the government allows itself to not be immune, and so in both Canada and the UK there are laws allowing lawsuits to be filed against the Crown.
In the UK there's also specific immunity regarding the monarch.
Besides that, it turns out there's a huge swath of immunity for the king or queen as a private citizen: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property
The United States is different in that the head of state is the head of the government, and so I can see where a discrepancy between the two may arise.
The United States also has blanket immunity itself, which is a different question, and different countries state apparatus do or do not indemnify themselves.
Japan's supreme court recently claimed they have no power over the Emperor, suggesting sovereign immunity.
Australia notably does not have sovereign immunity, and their laws list which statutes do and do not apply to the crown.
India has an elected head of state in its president, and that president has immunity for the term of presidency written into the constitution, but that ends once the term ends.
So it seems like there's a lot of variability, suggesting the US could go either way under normal circumstances.
I think right now there's a problem that the US is on the verge of civil war, so we aren't in normal circumstances. Having the absolute sovereign immunity for actions taken in an official capacity I think might help throw a little water on the lawfare we're constantly seeing. If this decision went the other way, I don't see any reason to think we wouldn't see charges up against Biden, Obama, and Clinton in short order, and that it doesn't matter what you think about them, that would be a bad thing.
Having to come up with legislation, particularly bipartisan legislation, to limit such immunity, might actually be good -- it'll help set the ground rules and ensure there's accountability on one side, but that people aren't trying to figure out arbitrary rules before they've even been set on the other.
In the UK there's also specific immunity regarding the monarch.
Besides that, it turns out there's a huge swath of immunity for the king or queen as a private citizen: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property
The United States is different in that the head of state is the head of the government, and so I can see where a discrepancy between the two may arise.
The United States also has blanket immunity itself, which is a different question, and different countries state apparatus do or do not indemnify themselves.
Japan's supreme court recently claimed they have no power over the Emperor, suggesting sovereign immunity.
Australia notably does not have sovereign immunity, and their laws list which statutes do and do not apply to the crown.
India has an elected head of state in its president, and that president has immunity for the term of presidency written into the constitution, but that ends once the term ends.
So it seems like there's a lot of variability, suggesting the US could go either way under normal circumstances.
I think right now there's a problem that the US is on the verge of civil war, so we aren't in normal circumstances. Having the absolute sovereign immunity for actions taken in an official capacity I think might help throw a little water on the lawfare we're constantly seeing. If this decision went the other way, I don't see any reason to think we wouldn't see charges up against Biden, Obama, and Clinton in short order, and that it doesn't matter what you think about them, that would be a bad thing.
Having to come up with legislation, particularly bipartisan legislation, to limit such immunity, might actually be good -- it'll help set the ground rules and ensure there's accountability on one side, but that people aren't trying to figure out arbitrary rules before they've even been set on the other.
Is.... uh.... Is a bunch of fit women taking their shirts off and cleaning up the usual result of electing right-wing governments?
Just asking.... for a friend.....
Just asking.... for a friend.....
Honestly, this is a big problem for anyone who doesn't actually know what the law already said. Sovereign immunity has been the law of the land since the 1600s. In this way, the supreme Court is only reaffirming everyone already knew. It has its roots back in English common law. The king had created common courts which were required to hold to precedent created by earlier courts, ensuring fairness. Of course, being england, they did end up having to say that the King was immune to prosecution because they are the king the ultimate organ of the state. A lot of common law ended up getting transferred over to the United States when it was formed, including that concept.
As I said in my previous post, there is a solution to this. The Congress can pass a Federal executive liability after that explicitly lays out the situations under which the president would be criminally liable for actions that they make as the executive. There are already examples of Congress doing this such as 1983 civil rights claims and the Federal civil tort claims act.
If the concern is that Donald Trump is going to do something that bad, then Congress and Senate could get together with Democrats ans some never Trumpers pass such an act, and get Joe Biden to sign it. If Joe Biden won't sign it, then create a bipartisan law with broader support that gets supermajority, and force the president to sign it.
Of course, this is all political theatre so nobody will even try to pass such a law.
As I said in my previous post, there is a solution to this. The Congress can pass a Federal executive liability after that explicitly lays out the situations under which the president would be criminally liable for actions that they make as the executive. There are already examples of Congress doing this such as 1983 civil rights claims and the Federal civil tort claims act.
If the concern is that Donald Trump is going to do something that bad, then Congress and Senate could get together with Democrats ans some never Trumpers pass such an act, and get Joe Biden to sign it. If Joe Biden won't sign it, then create a bipartisan law with broader support that gets supermajority, and force the president to sign it.
Of course, this is all political theatre so nobody will even try to pass such a law.
Prior to the current era, the health of the community was considered part of the health of the individual.
Some things we look back on that don't make sense are actually community reactions to things. Witch burnings were for example a sort of social immune response to individuals stirring up discord in the community, and in England relatively recently, being a Karen was an offense punishable by law.
Confucianism is essentially making this idea of community harmony God to be worshipped (though that brings with it a whole new set of issues, including corruption and practical conservatism)
An unhealthy community breeds unhealthy individuals, and when both are combined you end up with a community that can't deal with the world.
Maybe it doesn't matter individually, but it matters a lot to a community, and to a region made up of those communities, and a country made up of those regions, and a civilization made up of those countries, because we've got a civilization that's falling apart despite a long period of (admittedly shrinking) economic expansion and a long period of world peace. Imagine what would happen if we actually saw some serious external threats?
Besides the whole in concept, in practice we know about things like social contagion which see bad behaviors spreading beyond just the individuals to others.
Some things we look back on that don't make sense are actually community reactions to things. Witch burnings were for example a sort of social immune response to individuals stirring up discord in the community, and in England relatively recently, being a Karen was an offense punishable by law.
Confucianism is essentially making this idea of community harmony God to be worshipped (though that brings with it a whole new set of issues, including corruption and practical conservatism)
An unhealthy community breeds unhealthy individuals, and when both are combined you end up with a community that can't deal with the world.
Maybe it doesn't matter individually, but it matters a lot to a community, and to a region made up of those communities, and a country made up of those regions, and a civilization made up of those countries, because we've got a civilization that's falling apart despite a long period of (admittedly shrinking) economic expansion and a long period of world peace. Imagine what would happen if we actually saw some serious external threats?
Besides the whole in concept, in practice we know about things like social contagion which see bad behaviors spreading beyond just the individuals to others.
That's kind of a neat idea.
I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the next 50 years. The Internet is a luxury that can only exist in an era of world peace, which I think we can all see is fracturing.
I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the next 50 years. The Internet is a luxury that can only exist in an era of world peace, which I think we can all see is fracturing.
I tend to agree with you. Sometimes it should be perfectly obvious a way to make things better, but everyone is so busy fighting to keep a KPI in the green they aren't allowed to walk three feet to go look at the thing.
Big problem with "touch grass" as an appeal to normal people is that most normal people aren't touching grass. Generations of iPad kids growing up on the Internet, the world's biggest shopping mall filled with all the creeps of the world. People spend too much of their lives on their phones.
I go outside every day I'm home, with my son. Sometimes we go outside multiple times a day. The sidewalks are empty. The parks, it's rare to see someone at the parks and even then it's like one person, not usually a group. The world is a ghost town. It feels to me like the fact of ghost towns outside is a shocking revelation. We all assume someone else is still outside, even as many of us are not.
Where is everyone? Well that's the problem, isn't it? They're online, they're on their phones, they're watching TV. They're physically protected and psychically & psychologically under constant abuse and assault.
The first technology to threaten society is thought to have been the coin. This occurred overwhelmingly long ago, and by trading coins instead of favors, individuals didn't need to have as close relationships between each other, but cities could grow larger. The breakthrough technology that helped people deal with this was organized religion, which brought people together and pushed a common set of values despite money breaking apart interpersonal connections.
It's likely that soon we'll see the development of something to help resolve the problems brought about by the social problems caused by The Internet. Now it might not be something as powerful as organized religion, but perhaps we'll have to collectively learn how to step away from the screens and start going outside again?
I expect it'll have to be a cultural technology, not a digital technology.
I go outside every day I'm home, with my son. Sometimes we go outside multiple times a day. The sidewalks are empty. The parks, it's rare to see someone at the parks and even then it's like one person, not usually a group. The world is a ghost town. It feels to me like the fact of ghost towns outside is a shocking revelation. We all assume someone else is still outside, even as many of us are not.
Where is everyone? Well that's the problem, isn't it? They're online, they're on their phones, they're watching TV. They're physically protected and psychically & psychologically under constant abuse and assault.
The first technology to threaten society is thought to have been the coin. This occurred overwhelmingly long ago, and by trading coins instead of favors, individuals didn't need to have as close relationships between each other, but cities could grow larger. The breakthrough technology that helped people deal with this was organized religion, which brought people together and pushed a common set of values despite money breaking apart interpersonal connections.
It's likely that soon we'll see the development of something to help resolve the problems brought about by the social problems caused by The Internet. Now it might not be something as powerful as organized religion, but perhaps we'll have to collectively learn how to step away from the screens and start going outside again?
I expect it'll have to be a cultural technology, not a digital technology.
Holy shit, two samson tracks? My cup runneth over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGp_U6kz7i8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc1c_WSzk9E
That second one is probably about getting roped in with the other "conservative rappers".
Honestly, I think there's some insightful stuff there. Just because you share values with other people doesn't mean they're good at their craft, and doesn't mean you want to be associated with them.
It's something we're seeing a lot right now, "conservative media" in general isn't any better than "liberal media" -- what you really want is "good media". I've seen the conservative reviews of conservative media for example coming out on Daily Wire+, and it's not actually any good.
I know lots of people like him, but people compare Samson to Tom McDonald, and I feel like it's comparing Eminem to Vanilla Ice. The latter might be saying shit I agree with but he's not a great rapper, he's just an ok one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGp_U6kz7i8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc1c_WSzk9E
That second one is probably about getting roped in with the other "conservative rappers".
Honestly, I think there's some insightful stuff there. Just because you share values with other people doesn't mean they're good at their craft, and doesn't mean you want to be associated with them.
It's something we're seeing a lot right now, "conservative media" in general isn't any better than "liberal media" -- what you really want is "good media". I've seen the conservative reviews of conservative media for example coming out on Daily Wire+, and it's not actually any good.
I know lots of people like him, but people compare Samson to Tom McDonald, and I feel like it's comparing Eminem to Vanilla Ice. The latter might be saying shit I agree with but he's not a great rapper, he's just an ok one.
A lot of dark modes are just grey mode which represent the unlimited ennui of living in a post-modern post-industrial society where you're expected to find meaning in life not through nature or god or family but through mild contributions to a service.economy making sure food and other goods premanufactured in a foreign country are adequately prepared for sale... So I'll just go with light mode in those cases. Black or bust.
Not enough.
(And I do want to make sure I say: Lots of game magazines used to be awesome! The industry degenerated!)
(And I do want to make sure I say: Lots of game magazines used to be awesome! The industry degenerated!)
Pretty much everything since PayPal has been a vanity project. What's so bad about advancing science and engineering on electric cars, space ships, and robotics?
Honestly if I was an idle billionaire I'd do a lot of those things. I might even buy Twitter to piss people off.
Honestly if I was an idle billionaire I'd do a lot of those things. I might even buy Twitter to piss people off.
One of the most important things is "reduce reuse recycle" is in that order because the earlier choice is always the more desirable one for the environment.
It wasn't until I started drinking from a water bottle using tap water that I came to understand just how much waste prepared drinks create by contrast.
It wasn't until I started drinking from a water bottle using tap water that I came to understand just how much waste prepared drinks create by contrast.
Up here in Canada former prime minister Jean Chretien (liberal party guy but he balanced budgets so I generally liked him) gave a speech supporting Trudeau going "Canada is not broken!" Even though it's clearly broken.
I feel like these old guard party guys need what they're saying to be true because if the current leader is totally incompetent it directly reflects on them as members of the same party, on top of what you're saying which I fully agree with as well.
I feel like these old guard party guys need what they're saying to be true because if the current leader is totally incompetent it directly reflects on them as members of the same party, on top of what you're saying which I fully agree with as well.