Amanda Knox

[Brian]

I have a problem with this. Unapologetically cut from wikipedia (but cited from various dictionaries), "Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice."
Now this is something I can buy into.

But a guarantee of the equal right of a fair trial is not the same as a guarantee of equal access to Alan Dershowitz. And if celebrities, attractive people, etc. are less likely to be convicted, how do we correct for that? Put them in a cardboard box when they testify?

[Sef]

But a guarantee of the equal right of a fair trial is not the same as a guarantee of equal access to Alan Dershowitz. And if celebrities, attractive people, etc. are less likely to be convicted, how do we correct for that? Put them in a cardboard box when they testify?

Hey I'm the first to say that I don't have the answer - in fact I already said that earlier, but that doesn't mean there can't be a discussion about it. But at the moment there seems to be some disagreement about the goal!

[Brian]

Hey I'm the first to say that I don't have the answer - in fact I already said that earlier, but that doesn't mean there can't be a discussion about it. But at the moment there seems to be some disagreement about the goal!

Some US states are attempting public defender reform to ensure that the poorest get good legal coverage. I can't remember where I read the story, but I believe one state is trying Democrat-style reforms - trying to lure better lawyers into being public defenders, creating higher training standards, etc. - and another state, maybe Texas, is trying Republican-style reforms - handing out "public defense vouchers" where you pick any lawyer you want and the state will pay for it. Contrary to popular belief, most public defenders are pretty dedicated and believe in the goodness of their cause. It's much like being a teacher in America: society expects the worst of them, and also pays them very poorly so that anyone with real ambition or talent can get hired elsewhere.

[Brahmsian]

3.  Capitalism is the best system we have.  It surely beats socialism, communism, dictatorships and royalty.

Yes, it is working perfectly for the highest 1% earners in America.

There will undoubtedly be a revolution in the USA at some point in time, likely within the next 5 to 10 years, max.  Continuous shrinking of the middle class, more outsourcing of American jobs to other countries, bank bailouts that are sure to occur again.  At some point, the masses will say enough is enough and revolt.

Doesn't seem to matter who is in power, the Republicans or Democrats, because the fact is neither of them are 'in power'.  Wall Street big banks and the richest CEO's of corporations are the one who pull all the strings.

[Todd]

There will undoubtedly be a revolution in the USA at some point in time, likely within the next 5 to 10 years, max. 

I am willing to place a wager on this one.  $200, or more if you'd like, that there will not be a revolution in your timeframe.  What do you say? 

[Brian]

Yes, it is working perfectly for the highest 1% earners in America.

I'm a bigtime capitalist, and I disapprove of the current income equality gap. But there's no inherent contradiction in that. There are some simple policy fixes which could help a great deal, and there are also some simple moral precepts which, if applied by various people, could help too. Capitalism does not entail greed, any more than Communism did, but greedy people are a constant fact of life that we have to do our best to counteract whether we're capitalist or not.

[Brahmsian]

I am willing to place a wager on this one.  $200, or more if you'd like, that there will not be a revolution in your timeframe.  What do you say?

I'm in, Todd.  Although, I'd prefer instead of $200 cash, something of a more stable guarantee (for you or I).  $200 worth of government backed derivative swaps. 

[Brahmsian]

I'm a bigtime capitalist, and I disapprove of the current income equality gap.

I am happy to hear this Brian. 

Do you believe this income equality gap will ever be resolved by the USA government or by the powerful and rich in America, or continue to widen?  I believe that it can, but that change won't come from government or the wealthy minority.

[The new erato]

I think the continuing accumulation of more wealth among fewer people is an unavoidable consequence of hvis system. A latter pie to share will mean we are all better off, but if the pie stops growing ....

[Todd]

I'm in, Todd.  Although, I'd prefer instead of $200 cash, something of a more stable guarantee (for you or I).  $200 worth of government backed derivative swaps.

If you want a widely accepted store of value in a world with the US in revolution, it would have to be $200 in gold, at today's prices.

I believe that it can, but that change won't come from government or the wealthy minority.

Ultimately, it did in the Progressive Era and the 1930s, and there was more deep poverty and widespread discontent and direct action (ie, political violence) during those periods than there is now or has been for the past half decade, so I see no reason why it would be different in the future.  The Occupy "movement" was a feeble assortment of aimless people lazily protesting all manner of things, and even that fizzled.  While there is a wide income gap, the absolute level of material well-being of even poor Americans is so comparatively high to what it was in pre-war America that it strikes me as hard to envision widespread violence or unrest, especially as the economy (very slowly) improves.  And while I certainly do not advocate policies that would lead to what some commentators call Neo-feudalism, it is worth pointing out that the extreme income and wealth disparities of feudalism lasted for centuries.  With a fat and happy-ish population enamored of their electronic gizmos and drugged up on the latest meds, it might be possible to see that again. 

[aquablob]

While there is a wide income gap, the absolute level of material well-being of even poor Americans is so comparatively high to what it was in pre-war America that it strikes me as hard to envision widespread violence or unrest, especially as the economy (very slowly) improves.

Bingo. And this is a point that is so often lost in these discussions.

Yes, the widening wealth gap is a problem that we can't ignore, but the rich–poor gap is hardly the only indicator of a country's economic health, and it's surely not the most important one. When considering things on a global scale, the living standard of a nation's poor is crucial, and on that count the US has been doing pretty well for a while (albeit could and should do better). I'd put the potential for class mobility up there, too, and on that count the US has some serious problems.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. All "first-world" countries have mixed economies, some of which lean a little closer toward socialism, and some of which lean a little closer toward capitalism. Finding the right balance is tricky, because the sane among us value both individual liberty and social welfare, which are so often competing interests. If we've learned anything from history, we'll ignore the extreme ideologues on either side and instead keep searching for that right balance.

I'm not sure what the right answer is for this issue of public defenders, but paying them well in order to (continue to) attract skilled and dedicated attorneys is probably part of it. In any case, I don't think the solution to inequality should necessarily be to force everyone who has it better to have it just as bad as the least fortunate among us. It depends on the issue, but when it comes to something as fundamental to individual liberty as trying to clear one's name when wrongly accused of a crime, I find the thought of disallowing the use of one's own resources for the purpose rather repugnant.

[Brian]

If you want a widely accepted store of value in a world with the US in revolution, it would have to be $200 in gold, at today's prices.

Bitcoin!

(But more seriously, strictly in the world of currency, perhaps the Swiss franc or a Scandinavian denomination? I'm not altogether certain.)

[Todd]

But more seriously, strictly in the world of currency, perhaps the Swiss franc or a Scandinavian denomination? I'm not altogether certain.

The US dollar is still the primary global reserve currency, and its financial markets are the largest and most liquid in the world.  A real revolution in the United States would cause financial panic around the world, and currencies pegged to the US dollar would collapse, taking the affected countries' economies with them.  Some countries' currencies might go up in the short term, but with US treasuries massively devalued or valueless, which would most likely be the case during a revolution, trillions of dollars in financial transactions would be at risk and trillions of dollars in assets would be very difficult or impossible to price, so financial markets the world over would either stop functioning altogether, or at least be seriously hobbled for a good while, and global trade would be seriously reduced.  Those are the types of conditions that may lead to more intense economic nationalism in other regions, which could lead to war between various countries other than the US.  And what if whatever revolutionary leaders - that is, dictator or dictators - who would emerge decide to be like Napoleon and try to take down the current Ancien Régime the world over?  It is important to consider that as popular as it is to compare the United States to Rome, or other ancient empires, the US has actually achieved a degree of global hegemony militarily, politically, and economically that is unprecedented in history, even in its current relatively diminished state (as compared to, say, the 1950s).  Rome's collapse didn't mean a whole lot to ancient China, for instance.  If the US collapsed today, it most certainly would.  A US revolution would not be the end of the world, but it would cause not a little inconvenience.

But of course, the conditions are not ripe for revolution in the US.  Disaffection with this or that policy, or the unfairness of income distribution, or what not, are not quite the same as the acute deprivations and inequalities that existed in 18th Century France or 20th Century Russia.  A variety of conditions would have to deteriorate rather markedly, and quickly, starting with the economy as a whole, before one could make bold claims about an impending revolution.  Perhaps those who favor or predict revolution are hoping for a modern version on 1688 or 1776.