In San Francisco if someone walks into your shop and steals less than $950 worth of goods there's pretty much nothing you can do about it; is that rule of law?
Yes, that is literally a written law that is being properly followed. Although the end result may be questionable, there is a legal framework by which disputes could be reasonably resolved, while trying to preserve the rights of all parties involved.
In other places you have no such thing and, trust me, things are much worse.
Because promising not to is how he got elected. In other words, a left wing political coalition that wasn't able to get the law changed via the normal routes were able to eliminate the rule of law instead.
In the article, it's mentioned that people there are held in jail for decades for debts below $1000. That's the "debt trap" in the title.
I'd argue that I'd rather let someone steal than let them rot in jail for such a long time, for such a low monetary value, be it from debt or from theft. I understand you may disagree, that's why we do politics.
Additionally, which country has the best "rule of law", comparatively? Talking in absolutes in that regard is moot in my opinion.
> In the article, it's mentioned that people there are held in jail for decades for debts below $1000. That's the "debt trap" in the title.
Eh, lots of people are in jail in the US primarily due to their inability to pay court fees. Many because they couldn't pay the public defender fees.[1] Lots of cases where the accumulation of court fees dwarfs the financial costs of their original crime, and are punished much more for not being able to pay for fees than for their original crime.
Oh, and in some states they suspend your driver's license for nonpayment of these fees. This makes it even harder to work and earn money.
>>I'd argue that I'd rather let someone steal than let them rot in jail for such a long time, for such a low monetary value, be it from debt or from theft.
There is a middle ground between these two extremes. Also, if you want to compare costs, you have to factor in the deterrence effect of the latter, which will translate to much less lost in theft, and in additional store security.
Your rights can be infringed by any person on Earth at any time they please. But then, laws can be invoked to make said person stop and to apply the appropriate punishment/reparations.
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
(R.S. § 1978.)
+
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
San Francisco is definitely terrible right now, but even so, having people in jail who shouldn't be is way, way worse than having people out of jail who shouldn't be.
In San Francisco if someone walks into your shop and steals less than $950 worth of goods there's pretty much nothing you can do about it; is that rule of law?