RE: No, Appealing Government Abuses to the Government Doesn't Work
Hmmm....... Thousands of cases go against the United States government every year. Yes, thousands. There is plenty of recourse, and if you happen to be wealthy, your chances of taking on the government are very good. If your poor, you're probably screwed, unless you get a good lawyer willing to work for "free" (or often publicity). These aren't mere exceptions to rules, the staggering number of cases and rulings against the government show that the law has some degree of impartiality. Realistically, the wealthy are in the best position to enforce that impartiality through high paid lawyers.
I understand that many thousands more cases go in the governments favor, and power is clearly skewed in the government's favor. However, to equate the U.S. to a police state with a "monopoly" on violence (even though consent along the lines of Locke is far more visible and prominent than violence) is disingenuous, and disrespectful for the people who have suffered under totalitarian regimes.
Our government sucks, most western governments suck. And yet, they suck a whole hell of a lot less than many other regimes of the past (and also present). We do enjoy a hell of a lot more rights and recourse than people who suffered under the soviet union, or the old European monarchs. That doesn't mean we should stop, or even celebrate, but it does demonstrate that progress is possible.
Sorry for the delay in responding to you; I just now have the opportunity to type out a decent reply on my laptop. Since there's a fair amount to unpack in your response, I wanted to give you the benefit of a well-written response.
There is no degree of impartiality. If the only party that can arbitrate disputes between you and the government is, in fact, part of the government, it is not impartial. That cases are decided in favor of the plaintiff with some frequency does not change this fact.
First point first: the federal and state governments of the U.S. do have a monopoly on violence. They are the sole arbiters of whether or not violence is justified, and they are the only ones that determine whether or not an agent of the state has used violence excessively. To say that it is anything other than that because the U.S. maintains the illusion of impartiality and justice is disingenuous.
Second point second: how is it disrespectful to other people who have suffered and currently suffer under totalitarian regimes? My article was left purposefully ambiguous. The only reason I mentioned the United States was because you mentioned using political action, so I used the example I most familiar with to demonstrate how that was, at best, the most remote possibility, right up there with the government agreeing to dissolve itself. The content of the article applies doubly to places where there is a hard authoritarian regime, like Romania in the 80's - which is where I was born and grew up.
That the authoritarianism in the U.S. is a lot softer than the Socialist dictatorship my parents grew up under in Romania doesn't change the fact that it still is an authoritarian regime. I agree that progress is possible, but it doesn't come if people ignore facts. The fact is, appealing unjust and immoral acts by one party to that same party for arbitration is, by its very nature, unjust and biased. Whether or not you manage to win your case is irrelevant; it means that you won simply because the party that wronged you decided it was easier and more beneficial to them to let you win than to rule against you.
Thank you for your measured responses, by the way. This is the kind of conversation I moved to Steemit to have. Very rarely do you engage in actual discourse elsewhere on the internet.
Of course there can be impartiality within a government. Between individuals there can be impartiality, perhaps never perfect 100%, but to some degree. This comes down to personal choice. The supreme court has already proven to be relatively impartial in numerous rulings in regards to government actions, and has frequently overridden government decisions on multiple occasions. Of course, supreme court judges are heavily influenced by their own ideologies. Regardless, I view the idea of "no impartiality" as wholly irrelevant, and patently false. Are they perfectly impartial? Far from it.
There seems to be an unwillingness to grant individuals agency. For some reason, people have an obsession with removing individuality from people. This process is among the most powerful forces behind racial prejudice, sexism, etc. by my estimate. In this, and from my point of view, you're replacing "black", "female", etc. with "government employee".
An FBI agent is, in physical actuality, as well as applied reality, a different person than a judge. They aren't one in the same party. At the physical level, they can't be, at the applied level, in the United States there is a degree of separation between different branches, and while imperfect, it is far better than in authoritarian regimes, and has on numerous occasions proven capable of policing the government and reigning in government powers. Let me stress again, this process if far from perfect.
Generally, the US government adheres to its own laws, although it does write corrupt laws (which can and have been overturned by the supreme court). When the government is found to be breaking laws, and it is brought to public attention, there is a solid chance that prosecution, firings, etc. will happen. Usually, cover ups down happen between branches, but instead at the branch level. So congress might decide to try to hide the screw ups of a Congressmen, but once it reaches courts, it's more likely that a judge will be more impartial.
The point about "monopoly" of violence, isn't that the U.S. government doesn't have the total monopoly on legitimate violence in the U.S. It does (maybe I misworded my original statement), but having that monopoly doesn't necessarily make them a police state, and indeed the U.S. isn't one. A broken democracy beset by inequality, special interests, etc. yes. But recourse is possible against the government, even if difficult, and change is possible without revolution, even if difficult. In an authoritarian police state, both the monopoly and willingness to use that monopoly ensures that short of revolution, change is extremely unlikely.
I am going to assume that you are an anarchist (given your name). I have yet to find an anarchist who puts forward a non-utopian model, but I am all ears if you want to put forward an argument, or provide authors for me to research.
Thanks for the discussion.
Once again, saying that impartiality happens does not mean that the system is designed this way. It's not. It is designed to force you, the plaintiff, to petition the same party that wronged you for restitution. Sometimes this happens; sometimes this doesn't. However, pointing to the fact that it happens does not negate the fact that you are still entirely at the mercy of the party that did the wrong.
I understand what you're saying that an individual agent, or even a particular branch, is not equivalent to every other branch or agent comprising the entity called government. However, in the same way an employee of a company is still a member of the party that is that company, those agents and divisions are members of the same party called government. If an employee of a bank defrauded you, would it be considered just and proper to be forced to arbitrate the dispute with the governing board of the bank? No, of course not. It would be a severe conflict of interest. And yet, when it comes to government, this fact is somehow glossed over and ignored.
The only change that would effectively render the situation justified is if a government allowed a plaintiff in cases of government misconduct to appeal to a third party as an arbitrator. Otherwise, there is no impartiality in the proceedings; there is, by virtue of the actors involved, a conflict of interest, and it renders any claim of impartiality moot.
My argument is that this method is immoral and cannot possibly result in justice except by coincidence. By design, it is unjust. So far you've yet to disprove this claim. As for what model I'd suggest? I don't care, so long as people respect the property and consent of others. Have whatever system makes you feel happy. Hell, if you want to have a huge central government, you can have that, too, so long as it's built upon the actual consent of everyone it attempts to enforce rules on and it doesn't attempt to use force to make people obey its edicts and take people's property that do not consent to its rule.