> Ever seen a president appear in court an unlawful attack on another country ?
I have seen some presidents in courts of Justice. Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac, also in different categories, Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. I would say that this is roughly as common as seeing a wealthy CEO charged for crimes that his company made.
Basically, when you give power to an entity, you must keep in mind what it will cost to remove it when it abuses its power. Corporations or public authorities are not that different in this respect : if a fairly elected body cannot keep them in check, or step in in case of abuses, don't give them power, even if they look "nice".
That is a simple principle to avoid violent conflicts. If NASA says it wants to start inject cesium in huge quantity in the atmosphere, vote them out in the next term (yes, voting can work, even in America). If Exxon wants to do the same, make sure that a justice+police environment exists that can forbid them and coercively force them to not do that.
Wrong answer - you mention presidents who were in trial not for unlawful attacks on other people (Chirac and Clinton) and others who were anyway losing the war they were involved in (Milosevic and Hussein) which is a totally different situation. I have yet to hear about presidents of "democracies" being charged of crimes of war, for example.
> hen you give power to an entity, you must keep in mind what it will cost to remove it
Agree with you, but why is it that in so many countries, elected officials are beyond the law in so many ways ? In France, for example, elected officials benefit of immunities and they cannot be sued during their mandate. How is that fair ?
> voting can work, even in America
Even in America ? A country when you only have a choice between 2 parties does not really qualify as "it's working" to me. It's like choosing between plague and cholera: you basically wonder every time which one is less harmful than the other.
We don't need more policies to protect the environment. If you gave actual ownership rights on the environment, people who own them would defend their ownership and sue polluters for damages and reparation. It's a well known problem called as "tragedy of the commons". When nobody owns anything, everyone will keep destroying the resource until it's gone. That's what's happening with Tuna fishing in the Mediterranean Sea currently. Ownership is the only answer to ensure there will be balance and retribution for unlawful acts.
I have seen some presidents in courts of Justice. Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac, also in different categories, Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. I would say that this is roughly as common as seeing a wealthy CEO charged for crimes that his company made.
Basically, when you give power to an entity, you must keep in mind what it will cost to remove it when it abuses its power. Corporations or public authorities are not that different in this respect : if a fairly elected body cannot keep them in check, or step in in case of abuses, don't give them power, even if they look "nice".
That is a simple principle to avoid violent conflicts. If NASA says it wants to start inject cesium in huge quantity in the atmosphere, vote them out in the next term (yes, voting can work, even in America). If Exxon wants to do the same, make sure that a justice+police environment exists that can forbid them and coercively force them to not do that.