Actually, this refers to something else completely. low justice is for minor infractions and civil disputes, high justice for big crimes, and has the right to capital punishment.
So if you publish a book without being authorized to do so, your case will go to the low court, which sorts out things like the new-fangled copy-right and other civil infractions.
If you've beaten up a servant of your lord (or your city), or have been accused of having done so, you go to the high court. If it turns out said servant had committed perjury, he'd be stripped of his legal rights, including the right to ever again swear an oath in a court...
Would a "reasonably decent POTUS" really: - Not end the war on drugs - Not close gitmo as promised - Not be transparent as promised - Fullfill the wishes of the MAFIAA - Wage a war on whistleblowers - Have people assassinated - Have people tortured - Have the whole world put under surveillance - Allow everyone and his neighbor to frack below other peoples land
The list goes on and on.
The only "decent" things I can find is that he really seemed to be trying the get Americans a decent healthcare system, and the he killed off some weird pipeline. But being a bit social and a bit eco-friendly doesn't really cut it against being a fascist.
a large-scale downloader and redistributor Of pictures.
What exactly is the crime? Is this about copyright? or privacy violations?
I refuse to adhere to the position that "possession" of anything should be a crime (however, it can of course be evidence; you don't want to "possess" a stolen painting...).
Actually, I think it would very much make sense to NOT criminalize the possession of child pornography because then ordinary people wouldn't just "say nothing" because they're afraid they could be persecuted. Instead, they would inform the police, and the chances of finding real criminals, the child molesters, would go up..
Besides, right now there are people convicted of possession of child pornography for possession of comics, drawings and pictures of themselves, which is frankly absurd.
The Free Market is not "existing by itself". It's made by societies. It's made by laws.
"Free Market" as an idea implies that everyone can participate in it; and it actually works best if everyone is supplier and consumer at the same time, because, obviously, innovation will be at its peak, and also consumer choice. That's the macro-economic perspective of it.
On the purely micro-economic perspective, for a lone actor, the most interesting system is the one where everything belongs to him, and he's the only supplier of everything. But quite clearly, this cannot be called "free market" by any stretch.
So the idea is to build a level playing field for all actors. Laws that regulate employment, destruction of environment, declaration duty, monopolies and so on are all geared towards that. And net neutrality as well.
Of course, for individual actors, it can be beneficial to game the system, getting laws that allow dumping of toxic waste, allow government-granted monopolies etc., thus gearing that playing field. TTIP and suchlike are obvious attempts at doing this, and inherently anti-free-market.
Oh yes, it is. - It changes your behavior - It allows anyone retroactively to do data-analysis (Like for when the USA enacts Sharia-Law and looks for people who cheated on their husbands the last 20 years...). - It's wholly, completely, incompatible with the state of law. And the state of law happens to be the basis for democracy. So it actually destroys democracy. - It provides a database as a target for abuse (by the collectors themselves, AND by third-party hackers).
Still broken: - All games requiring Rockstar Social Club (stupid DRM). - A lot of games requiring DirectX 6 to 8, or glide. - Lots of troubles with .NET (which is expected, the .NET runtime is a piece of crap. For instance it blows up your registry from 300kb to 8MB). - Codec Hell. A lot of older games want to play movies in specific versions of codecs, which of course break newer games and vice versa. This isn't actually a wine-problem. The same happens on Windows.
Eliminate all vulnerabilities, making everyone more secure
Hoard or produce vulnerabilities to attack adversaries, making EVERYONE less secure
Nobody is going to trust these agencies. They won't even trust each other, because this second case means agencies like the NSA is deliberately putting others like the DOA or the DEA or even the DOD at risk. Since the more people know (and need to know) details of these issues, they will inevitably leak, making them useless to attack anyone.
So it's pretty much a given the NSA won't tell the companies managing the power grid, since then the information would basically be public. And of course with not telling them, they put the power grid at risk.
Unless there's a paradigm shift within these agencies, NOBODY can trust them.
Sadly, most countries in the world have no way to ensure
* That regulations don't contradict the law * That laws don't contradict the constitution
It's usually left to the legislative bodies to ensure this. But they realized thy don't have to, hence some jerk can override laws with "National Security Letters", and hence some congress can override the constitution with some "PATRIOT act".
And this is not US-specific, we have this problem in Switzerland as well (although we have some remedy, in the form that if we can gather enough signatures, we can force a public vote on a law. Not on regulations, though...).
What's really needed is a court of law, where everyone can submit laws or regulations and say "I think this contradicts another law or the constitution", and logically everyone has "standing", because it obviously effects everyone. And the court must be able to enforce its judgements.
This is somewhat implemented in Germany with the constitutional court ("Verfassungsgericht"), but I think that one only covers laws, and neither treaties nor regulations, and furthermore, it lacks any means to really enforce its decisions. So what they've got is a judgement against pre-emptive data retention, but hundreds of politicians still trying to write it into law.