• 0 Posts
  • 76 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 27th, 2023

help-circle


  • Draghetta@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldDistro Focuses
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Real. Though sometimes running a recent version of something is a real challenge, unless it ships in appimage. If it’s a small program you can usually backport the package from unstable or just build it yourself, but if it depends on some rust or js libraries or whathaveyou you have to do so much crap you might as well just be running trixie






  • Yes but you are talking about party funding. Politicians are not into it for the funding, that’s peanuts.

    The relationship between politics and money is already regulated, that’s what embezzlement laws are about. They can be improved, but you’ll find it’s harder than you would think.

    Surely decoupling money from politics is not possible, which is what I was answering about.




  • I’m with you. I was just addressing the general question, which doesn’t get addressed as much as it should :)

    I would rather see the conversation going towards reforming the broken system rather than going in the direction of “fuck the state it’s all broken anyway” which wouldn’t help anybody.

    Let’s call this murder an act of political violence. If it’s the first, brutal step towards reform, then it’s one thing and we can “celebrate”. If it’s the first step towards Dodge City (which is the vibes I get from some comments) then there is very little to be happy about.



  • Taking money from politics is like taking food from cooking. Not compatible.

    The whole point of politics is power, influence, assignment of scarce resources. I don’t mean this in a bad way, it’s literally what politics is about: you want your government to make laws that influence your community, to collect taxes and use them in a certain way, to regulate certain things the way you’d like. Without those things politics are meaningless.

    Money is just power that you can measure and trade, it will always be part of the equation. Removing money from politics is nonsensical.


  • This is a very interesting question that would require so much more talk than is proper for a lemmy comment.

    I’ll try and make a stupidly short summary:

    In political philosophy, it is commonly accepted to define a state as a political community where the government detains the monopoly over legitimate use of physical force.

    Basically what allows you to feel safe in such a community - as opposed to a more tribal one - is that you know that you can’t be harmed by your fellow citizen. When you buy your groceries you don’t want to worry that the shopkeeper will beat you up because he doesn’t want to give you change. When you are outside enjoying your sandwich you don’t want to worry about a random guy cracking your head open in order to steal it. You are not worried because you know that their violence would be considered illegitimate, and would be met by legitimate violence.

    This only works if everyone agrees to delegate their use of violence to the state, who in turn executes that violence through the appropriate means (police etc) using the appropriate rules. If violence is taken into one’s hands the whole foundation of the political community breaks down, which means that the state has existential interests in prosecuting whoever does it.

    States where violence is not really prosecuted are those commonly considered failed states.

    Now I know this is rather abstract and the real world is more complex than that, but as I said this would require a lot more space than is available here. But there is your answer: [privately administered] violence is not the answer.