3 ms·

Then Oliver Cromwell shows that England didn't have rule of law.

by olavk 11y ago

vinceguidry 11y ago
How many times do I have to say, it's a gradual process? England fought the battles so the rest of the world implementing rule of law later didn't have to. Cromwell damaged English rule of law, but he didn't destroy it. He was able to dissolve Parliament but ultimately could not rule effectively without it. He had popular support of the army but could not fund it properly. The army would have refused orders to act as tax collectors so ultimately Cromwell was simply one more would-be tyrant in a line of English kings who had to limit his ambitions to foreign policy after being frozen out domestically. Which suits the nation fine because foreign policy is exactly what they want him to be pursuing. So long as the army is busy away from home, they're not free to terrorize the legislature or interfere with the political process. Funding and taxation was a major reason why the English were able to implement rule of law first. A would-be dictator has to be able to enforce his whims, but cannot if the army won't follow his orders or is left to rot, unsupplied on the battlefield. Parliament in Cromwell's day refused to simply do his bidding. That is a key necessity for protection against dictatorship. A mad tyrant can run around declaring things, but if nobody is listening to him, all he's doing is barking orders. Eventually, they made peace and Parliament offered Cromwell the crown, but he was a dedicated anti-monarchist and refused it, thinking of himself as a dictator in the Roman mold. Despite this, the tug of war between the legislature and the executive continued, just Cromwell managed to get the upper hand for awhile. After he died, his son Richard became Lord Protector, and the balance of power swung back towards Parliament. "Richard was never formally deposed or arrested, but allowed to fade away. The Protectorate was treated as having been from the first a mere usurpation." The Council of State took back over and invited Charles I's son to claim the throne. This is how it happens in rule of law countries. Coups do not have the desired effect, your power is going to be circumscribed anyway by tradition, law, and all the other politicians at play that you don't control.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > England fought the battles so the rest of the world implementing rule of law later didn't have to. Have you yet provide a concrete explanation of how, exactly, the claim that England had rule of law before other nations (either in a binary sense, or in a continuous sense where England consistently over some significant period of time had a greater degree of "rule of law" than anyone else) is justified? Because it doesn't seem like there is anything really concrete here.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll just say it one more time. Evolution is gradual. There is no turning point in time before which the English had rule of law and after which they did. It doesn't work like that. Nothing works like that. The binary sense you're looking for doesn't exist. The continuous sense does exist, but you have to deeply analyze historical events to ascertain distinguishing factors. You have to have analyzed numerous other countries to see how they play out with different polities, different cultures, different geopolitical imperatives. How the Soviets used law, how the Chinese use it. People find all kinds of ways to collect power. Other people oppose them. Things are cultural and not just codified. You can't just look at a collection of facts and make the determination. Politics is messy. The concrete sense you're looking for doesn't exist. I've laid out a lot of rationale and historical context to lay out what the terrain of rule of law looks like, how it's threatened, protected, and codified; and analyzed four different countries in four different time periods. This is a lay hobby of mine so I can't claim any kind of authority here. I could understand if you disagree with my findings. But neither of you have offered up any substantive analysis of your own or your own definition. Just isolated incidents in history with no surrounding context. I try to provide that context and it seems like I'm talking to a brick wall. You can't just cherry-pick events and expect that to be very insightful, all people do when they do that is reinforce their existing beliefs.
    - vinceguidry 11y ago
      We don't even have to stay at this level, we could drill down further. How England's system of law differed from Rome's, how their economic system differed and what effects that all had on their politics and the ambitions of would-be tyrants. You both seem to just want to look at the politics. England's common law provided a grassroots bulwark against tyranny, tyrants like to implement legal codes but that ability was limited, constraining important powers like tax collection. Their innovations concerning contracts and charters and financial instruments forced their kings along certain lines. They simply had a more well-developed civic infrastructure that allowed it to heal when damaged whereas Rome's crumbled. All of these things are connected, they all contribute to rule of law.
- olavk 11y ago
  The definitions you present uses dubious logic. For example you say Republican Rome didn't have rule of law, since they (after lasting 450 years) turned into a dictatorship. And Iceland wasn't rule of law since the ended up being conquered by Norway. This means that if Britain at some point - however long into the future - turns into a dictatorship or is conquered by foreign power, then not only will this end the rule of law, it would mean that it never had rule of law in the first place, and some other nations must be designated as the inventor of rule-of-law! That is an ahistorical way of explaining history - I think the technical term is "whiggish history". Also you are using a lot of "no true scotsman"-logic. Cromwell wasn't a true dictator since he still had to struggle with parliament. But the same is the case with the Roman emperors. There was an ongoing struggle between the senate and the emperor, and for example the senate deposed Nero, which shows he wasn't a sovereign dictator.

Then Oliver Cromwell shows that England didn't have rule of law.

by olavk 11y ago

Then Oliver Cromwell shows that England didn't have rule of law.

How many times do I have to say, it's a gradual process? England fought the battles so the rest of the world implementing rule of law later didn't have to. Cromwell damaged English rule of law, but he didn't destroy it. He was able to dissolve Parliament but ultimately could not rule effectively without it. He had popular support of the army but could not fund it properly. The army would have refused orders to act as tax collectors so ultimately Cromwell was simply one more would-be tyrant in a line of English kings who had to limit his ambitions to foreign policy after being frozen out domestically. Which suits the nation fine because foreign policy is exactly what they want him to be pursuing. So long as the army is busy away from home, they're not free to terrorize the legislature or interfere with the political process. Funding and taxation was a major reason why the English were able to implement rule of law first. A would-be dictator has to be able to enforce his whims, but cannot if the army won't follow his orders or is left to rot, unsupplied on the battlefield. Parliament in Cromwell's day refused to simply do his bidding. That is a key necessity for protection against dictatorship. A mad tyrant can run around declaring things, but if nobody is listening to him, all he's doing is barking orders. Eventually, they made peace and Parliament offered Cromwell the crown, but he was a dedicated anti-monarchist and refused it, thinking of himself as a dictator in the Roman mold. Despite this, the tug of war between the legislature and the executive continued, just Cromwell managed to get the upper hand for awhile. After he died, his son Richard became Lord Protector, and the balance of power swung back towards Parliament. "Richard was never formally deposed or arrested, but allowed to fade away. The Protectorate was treated as having been from the first a mere usurpation." The Council of State took back over and invited Charles I's son to claim the throne. This is how it happens in rule of law countries. Coups do not have the desired effect, your power is going to be circumscribed anyway by tradition, law, and all the other politicians at play that you don't control.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> England fought the battles so the rest of the world implementing rule of law later didn't have to. Have you yet provide a concrete explanation of how, exactly, the claim that England had rule of law before other nations (either in a binary sense, or in a continuous sense where England consistently over some significant period of time had a greater degree of "rule of law" than anyone else) is justified? Because it doesn't seem like there is anything really concrete here.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll just say it one more time. Evolution is gradual. There is no turning point in time before which the English had rule of law and after which they did. It doesn't work like that. Nothing works like that. The binary sense you're looking for doesn't exist. The continuous sense does exist, but you have to deeply analyze historical events to ascertain distinguishing factors. You have to have analyzed numerous other countries to see how they play out with different polities, different cultures, different geopolitical imperatives. How the Soviets used law, how the Chinese use it. People find all kinds of ways to collect power. Other people oppose them. Things are cultural and not just codified. You can't just look at a collection of facts and make the determination. Politics is messy. The concrete sense you're looking for doesn't exist. I've laid out a lot of rationale and historical context to lay out what the terrain of rule of law looks like, how it's threatened, protected, and codified; and analyzed four different countries in four different time periods. This is a lay hobby of mine so I can't claim any kind of authority here. I could understand if you disagree with my findings. But neither of you have offered up any substantive analysis of your own or your own definition. Just isolated incidents in history with no surrounding context. I try to provide that context and it seems like I'm talking to a brick wall. You can't just cherry-pick events and expect that to be very insightful, all people do when they do that is reinforce their existing beliefs.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    We don't even have to stay at this level, we could drill down further. How England's system of law differed from Rome's, how their economic system differed and what effects that all had on their politics and the ambitions of would-be tyrants. You both seem to just want to look at the politics. England's common law provided a grassroots bulwark against tyranny, tyrants like to implement legal codes but that ability was limited, constraining important powers like tax collection. Their innovations concerning contracts and charters and financial instruments forced their kings along certain lines. They simply had a more well-developed civic infrastructure that allowed it to heal when damaged whereas Rome's crumbled. All of these things are connected, they all contribute to rule of law.
olavk 11y ago
The definitions you present uses dubious logic. For example you say Republican Rome didn't have rule of law, since they (after lasting 450 years) turned into a dictatorship. And Iceland wasn't rule of law since the ended up being conquered by Norway. This means that if Britain at some point - however long into the future - turns into a dictatorship or is conquered by foreign power, then not only will this end the rule of law, it would mean that it never had rule of law in the first place, and some other nations must be designated as the inventor of rule-of-law! That is an ahistorical way of explaining history - I think the technical term is "whiggish history". Also you are using a lot of "no true scotsman"-logic. Cromwell wasn't a true dictator since he still had to struggle with parliament. But the same is the case with the Roman emperors. There was an ongoing struggle between the senate and the emperor, and for example the senate deposed Nero, which shows he wasn't a sovereign dictator.