[adtechperson]

This is not a new problem. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in "Democracy in America" in 1835:

"It is evident that such a legislation is hostile to the poor and favorable only to the rich. The poor man has not always security to produce, even in a civil case; and if he is obliged to wait for justice in prison, he is speedily reduced to distress. A wealthy person, on the contrary, always escapes imprisonment in civil cases; nay, more, if he has committed a crime, he may readily elude punishment by breaking his bail. Thus all the penalties of the law are, for him, reduced to fines. Nothing can be more aristocratic than this system of legislation. Yet in America it is the poor who make the law, and they usually reserve the greatest advantages of society to themselves. The explanation of the phenomenon is to be found in England; the laws of which I speak are English, and the Americans have retained them, although repugnant to the general tenor of their legislation and the mass of their ideas."

[tialaramex]

I don't know if it was true in 1835 that "The laws of which I speak are English" but today the situation is utterly different in the two countries.

The UK has no concept of "cash bail", either you may go free, or you are a danger or flight risk and so you're held in jail by the state on its dime to avoid that.

The court can set fairly broad rules for bail, it just doesn't [this used to say "can't" but see the example below which proves that they actually can] ask for cash, e.g. "You must give us your passports and other travel documents so that you can't fly" or "You mustn't go near Jimmy who says you assaulted him" or even "You must go see the police once per week between now and your court date". If you break any of the rules, then you may stop qualifying for bail and get sent to prison until trial.

[multjoy]

Actually, that's not true. The courts (in E&W, at any case) can ask for a security (so cash or other assets) or a person to stand as a surety.

They rarely do so, but the highest profile one in recent times was when Julian Assange slipped off to that ground floor flat in Knightsbridge and cost his supporters the thick end of £100k

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Ju...

[cc-d]

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.

[dbatten]

Democracy in America is a fantastic book. It's amazing the number of things that might as well have been written about America in 2018. Reading it with the benefit of nearly 200 years of additional history, it basically becomes a tremendous commentary on the staying power of national culture and mythology...

[brightball]

It's something that's really interesting about reading US history as a hobby. It's fascinating have all of this ability to reflect and see how things developed.

History class in grade school was nowhere near as interesting as history books as an adult.

[aero142]

I had no idea when I was younger how much of school history is just introducing shared mythology and indoctrination. History is so much more interesting to just read about instead of the mythology selected by state education boards.

[unit91]

> mythology selected by state education boards

For example...?

[aero142]

The one that comes to mind is the discussions of the two World Wars. When I left high school, I basically believe that both of them were basically good vs evil stories, where Europe was sucking at stuff and then America showed up and defeated the bad guys. My history classes basically ignore WWI only to say that a bunch of people died in trenches and then America showed up. WWII, the British and French were losing, and then America showed up. What's an Eastern front? Normandy. America is awesome. The end.

[dbatten]

The first time I started actually learning about World War I and started realizing that the Germans were pretty much as innocent as anybody else in that conflict (and probably more innocent than, say, the Russians or the Austro-Hungarians, or the Ottomans), I was like "wait, what?"

Also, that the US didn't really do much from a combat perspective (though financing the whole thing for the Allied Powers certainly helped).

Mind=blown.

[DubiousPusher]

Some Myths I Learned in School that Reading History and Anthropology Corrected

1) The founders cast off autocratic tyranny and invented power checks, individual rights and the rule of law.

While monarchs in Russia, France and Spain frequently cited tradition, religion and even pagan mysticism to certify their absolute rule, things were a bit different in England. Republican government and rights of the ruled were part of the English system for a long time before 1776. They were mostly hard won by nobels (mostly for nobels) but none the less, proto constitutional law like Magna Carta, Parliament and the Civil Service preceded the founding by many years. American government may have been born of revolution but it was just an evolution of ideas and practices that had been developing for centuries.

2) America, and particularly Lincoln fought the Civil War in a nobel effort to end slavery.

While obviously the Civil War was triggered by the inability to resolve the issue of slavery the motivations of the primary participants aren't clear. From Robert E. Lee's initial opposition to secession to Lincoln's writing, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." it's clear that the war wasn't about "what was right" but what the individual actors wanted. What's really stunning about the narrative told in schools is just how close the government came to not abolishing slavery. The 13th amendment actually failed to pass the house once and that was with no Southern states holding seats at the time.

3) The Americas were largely empty when Europeans discovered them.

They weren't.

4) Neolithic people and hunter gatherers largely lived in peace with the planet and each other. For lack of a better term, they lived as "nobel savages".

To the contrary, the lives of these people are characterized by frequent skirmishes between bands, blood feuds and ritual killings. "Nobel savages" living all over the globe managed to drive extinct more than 50% of large mammal species well before recorded history. They also shaped the earth and warped plant life far from anything you could rightfully consider "natural".

I could go on about Martin Luther, the "Fall" of Rome and the Russian Revolution but I gotta get back to work.

[Tronno]

"Nobel" is the name of a scientist and his namesake prize; the word you're looking for is "noble".

[sol_remmy]

> It is evident that such a legislation is hostile to the poor and favorable only to the rich

I feel hopeless that this will ever change. In a extremely liberal city like San Francisco, where nearly every citizen follows progressive politics, NIMBYs have passed laws the enrich wealthy renters and make it hard for the poor to afford to live in the city.

If San Francisco cannot get this right, no one can.

[CPLX]

I agree somewhat with your conclusion but I question your premise.

From an outsider perspective San Francisco strikes me as a culture that is, and has been for decades, a creation of the affluent class.

Hippies and tech founders alike have all talked a good game about an equal society, but both groups are primarily seeded from the children of the rich and well educated and have worked to preserve the status quo.

New York City, for all its superficial associations with finance and Wall Street culture, has always seemed to be a much more genuinely diverse and empathetic place in actual day to day policy and practice.

[zaksoup]

as a Oakland resident with family in NYC I couldn't agree with this more.

[bvc35]

San Francisco is perhaps the most materialistic community on earth, full of people who don't care how bad things are for others if they themselves made it (and you can too!), full of people who want rights for gay people but don't care if gay people who aren't obscenely rich can live in their city. I would expect San Francisco to be the last place to deliberately help poor people.

[cat199]

I suggest reviewing the lyrics to 1980's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_%C3%9Cber_Alles

for appropriate relevancy nearly 40 years later.