4 ms·

> Taxi licenses would comply with the rule of law iff they were freely available to anyone who met the safety and service criteria. You seem to be mistaking "t

> Taxi licenses would comply with the rule of law iff they were freely available to anyone who met the safety and service criteria. You seem to be mistaking "the rule of law" for what are simply your ideological preferences.

nickff 10y ago
No, from Wikipedia: >"The Oxford English Dictionary has defined "rule of law" this way:[2] The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."
- pm24601 10y ago
  Key points you are missing: 1. the society in question is Norwegian 2. the social norms of what is "equally subject" to the law is also interpreted by Norwegian norms. So for example in the US. everyone pays the same fine for speeding. In Norway, the fine can be 10% of your annual income ( http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/07/highest-speeding-fines/ http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/07/highest-speeding-fines/ ) The Norwegians view this as a "equally subject to the law"
- cardiffspaceman 10y ago
  Just because a law is openly discriminatory doesn't mean that enforcing it is against the rule of law principle. It could violate some other worthy principle like treating rich and poor the same.
- simonh 10y ago
  Suppose the law said that only 1000 licenses for a particular kind of vehicle could be valid at any given time and new licenses could only be issued if old ones were surrendered, perhaps to limit congestion on the roads or pollution or whatever. As long as that law was enforced fairly, someone wanting to operate a new vehicle of that kind but unable to do so due to lack of available licenses would still be being treated fairly. If an official could arbitrarily remove licenses from one person and assign it to another, or arbitrarily assign more licenses at their discretion that would be a violation of the rule of law even if it was allowed by the law, because the official would be deciding who got licenses and not the law.

nickff 10y ago

No, from Wikipedia: >"The Oxford English Dictionary has defined "rule of law" this way:[2] The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."

pm24601 10y ago
Key points you are missing: 1. the society in question is Norwegian 2. the social norms of what is "equally subject" to the law is also interpreted by Norwegian norms. So for example in the US. everyone pays the same fine for speeding. In Norway, the fine can be 10% of your annual income ( http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/07/highest-speeding-fines/ http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/07/highest-speeding-fines/ ) The Norwegians view this as a "equally subject to the law"
cardiffspaceman 10y ago
Just because a law is openly discriminatory doesn't mean that enforcing it is against the rule of law principle. It could violate some other worthy principle like treating rich and poor the same.
simonh 10y ago
Suppose the law said that only 1000 licenses for a particular kind of vehicle could be valid at any given time and new licenses could only be issued if old ones were surrendered, perhaps to limit congestion on the roads or pollution or whatever. As long as that law was enforced fairly, someone wanting to operate a new vehicle of that kind but unable to do so due to lack of available licenses would still be being treated fairly. If an official could arbitrarily remove licenses from one person and assign it to another, or arbitrarily assign more licenses at their discretion that would be a violation of the rule of law even if it was allowed by the law, because the official would be deciding who got licenses and not the law.