[111111IIIIIII]

[flagged]

[josephd79]

Evansville, Indiana isn't rural. It's a city of 100,000 people. If you take the entire county it's closer to 200k. Regardless, using this software to spy on people, illegally identify people etc is just F'd up.

[aidenn0]

Yeah, it's about as rural as Santa Barbara.

[111111IIIIIII]

Fair enough. I've never heard of the place, but my point stands.

[devsegal]

From someone who's curious, why would the concept of "checks and balances" appear juvenile? Do you find it represents an ideal without possible application in the real world? Genuinely interested in hearing the why behind your statement.

[ROTMetro]

In theory there is something called 'chain of custody' with criminal evidence. That is the check. But in reality, if the chain of custody is messed up, the judge will use 'good faith' to still allow the evidence. So 'chain of custody' exists to placate those that have never been through the system as a make believe check to make them complacent. Go search a case database for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith' and realize chain of custody has been made optional by the judges bench because 'good faith'.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Not my comment, but I would say its because the checks and balances on people in power are also performed by people in power so many times its just a bit of theatre. Like when you see the police do something absolutely brutally and clear as day a breach of duty and violating someone's rights that should have them not only fired and barred from ever again serving in law enforcement but also put in jail; yet are 'cleared of all wrong-doing' by the police system of checks and balances.

[0xParlay]

Sweet summer child. To truly "get it" you have to unlearn the years of systemic and structural conditioning from the capital class before I'd even dream of going into the nuances of vanguardism. Your struggle with False Consciousness is totally relatable but can only be overcome with the warm guidance of Lenin. Come brother, it's totally not a cult.

[111111IIIIIII]

Basically yes. It's only useful in the idealistic universe of grade school political science. In actual politics, collusion, careerism, bribery, etc. will persist. A different set of official rules is only a different starting point for the same inevitable behavior. Furthermore, in America's case, the ultimate check will always be the check the capitalists are writing to the politicians.