Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial

Nobody acknowledged that probably because that is their fucking job. That is what they are getting paid to do and are entrusted with certain powers.

It is funny how the tables were turned and the baseline was reset. Now somehow cops who don't fuck up need to be acknowledged and sent a fruit cake. The hidden assumption here is perhaps that everyone starts to accept that there a lot of corruption and screws up by cops (this is indicative by the focus on "well there are a still some good cops, right, right...?")

> Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality.

This is just the normalization of reporting. Before these stories were not reported and were covered up. If it weren't for citizens with cameras (phones) we would have not seen a lot of police brutality videos.

When US is claimed to be a corrupt police state that is often in comparison with its propaganda image or the image people imagine US should/could be.

Nobody is surprised if North Korean cops take bribes or torture someone. Nobody believe it is a state with the "rule of law" in it. But a lot of people are surprised if a cop in US does, because people (fortunately) still expect more from US law enforcement.

But as I pointed out that starts to change.

  | By any non-mad definition, Sweden is not a
  | banana republic

The prefix "Banana Republic Justice" can also be seen as claiming that Sweden handed out banana republic-style justice in this case, not that Sweden is a banana republic.

Yesterday there was a debate about whether the spewing leaded gasoline fumes into the air was something that should be regulated by the govt or privately litigated. The pro-regulators handily won the votes battle, but this post is an example of why it is bad in a general sense.

The government is a giant complex system. It is also extremely prone to the slippery slope. If you allow the federal govt one new dept. they will make 5; if you allow the govt to increase budget by $1B, they will increase it by $100B; if you allow them to regulate one industry, they will regulate them all.

You can't judge the govt by a single mandate, you have to judge it as a whole. This is why federal regulations are bad in a general sense, because you start with something 'good' (the environment) but you are giving them permission to eventually regulate IP and other areas where more powerful business interests may not allow the regulations to turn out the way you want.

If you want the negative externalities of businesses (eg clean air) regulated by the govt, you have to acknowledge that they now have permission to regulate everything similar. But while the public has limited resources (energy, time and money) to fight for 'good' regulation, the corporations have essentially an infinite amount of each. It is a nebulous, interconnected system and the slippery slope is a very real dilemma here.

So its easy to downvote an anarcho-capitalist because you think the clean air act was a good thing or because private litigation is a bad thing, but you have to look at their underlying reasoning. Every inch you give the state, it takes a foot and in the end you only approve of 1/12 of the moves they make.

I don't think so. I would assume people in all jobs abuse their power, not just police, and not just in the US.

A direct democracy where moderators are assigned randomly for random intervals of time. Where reputation is gained based on the intelligence and acceptance of positive contributions. Where the best ideas, not the best orators, can prevail.

Where budgets, and distribution of taxes, are wholly transparent. Where the benefits and drawbacks of policies can be debated and discussed at length. Where the moderated masses can revise content. Where decisions are made based on the best scientific evidence at hand, not on the ill-founded misunderstandings of ignorant, or corrupt, politicians.

In this digital era where more people are connected to the Internet than contribute to voting for the electorate, we need to consider whether we want to continue to vote by paper ballot in 50 years. The environmental impact alone may well be worth going to a direct, digital democracy.