4 ms·

I think rule of law is supposed to be about non-enforcement of non-existent rules rather than enforcement of existent rules? i.e. the rules you have to follow a

I think rule of law is supposed to be about non-enforcement of non-existent rules rather than enforcement of existent rules? i.e. the rules you have to follow are those codified in the law, rather than whatever e.g. the executive happens to declare. You lose rule of law when they start to impose different rules rather than when they merely decide not to impose the ones in the law. Otherwise... who wants to live in a world where e.g. every single jaywalker gets fined? If you require enforcement of existent rules, you reduce rule of law to something that pretty much nobody wants, rendering it a pretty poor concept to define in the first place.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>who wants to live in a world where e.g. every single jaywalker gets fined?... I don't know? But I'd bet you could sign the vast majority of people up for a world where every single child rapist goes to prison. But debating behavioral extremes as we did right there is useless. The real issue is whether or not all people are treated equally under the law? If all people aren't, then the law does not rule. Those people who are above the law rule. There is no such thing as part time rule of law. Again, the best you could do is put it on a spectrum. This one is more rule of law oriented, this one is less. It's like being pregnant. A girl can be further along, or less far along in her pregnancy. But I mean really, she can't call herself a virgin because she didn't do doggy. That's not really how virginity works.
- taneq 7y ago
  > But I'd bet you could sign the vast majority of people up for a world where every single child rapist goes to prison. Depends how many innocent people also go to prison, doesn't it? At one end of the scale you have Benjamin Franklin's "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved" and at the other end you have China's pragmatic take that a few broken eggs is the price of an omelette.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    >At one end of the scale you have Benjamin Franklin's "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved" and at the other end you have China's ... But you're still arguing at the extremes and evading the central question of whether everyone is treated equally under the law. If the law rules, then everyone will be treated equally under it. Yet we find that in nearly every place on Earth, the law does not rule, because not everyone is treated equally under it. (And I only say "nearly" because I'm not 100% sure that there isn't some society out there that treats everyone equally. I'm 99.99% positive there is not, but I've not been everywhere in this world. But I'm 100% sure we don't have such a system in the US, because I'm an American, and I know America.) All that said, even debating the extremes, I mean, how many times you see some old black guy getting out of prison after 31 years or whatever because he didn't do it? You say, "See! He got out. So there must be Rule of Law!" But that's not how it works, because if there was Rule of Law, it would have been illegal to put him into prison in the first place. It was not. So again, we, ourselves, don't practice the whole "...better 100 guilty persons escape..." maxim. You can say, "Well, there are racial complications." or "Well, there are financial issues that go into legal representation too." or etc etc etc. But that's the same as saying that the law is not paramount.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>who wants to live in a world where e.g. every single jaywalker gets fined?... I don't know? But I'd bet you could sign the vast majority of people up for a world where every single child rapist goes to prison. But debating behavioral extremes as we did right there is useless. The real issue is whether or not all people are treated equally under the law? If all people aren't, then the law does not rule. Those people who are above the law rule. There is no such thing as part time rule of law. Again, the best you could do is put it on a spectrum. This one is more rule of law oriented, this one is less. It's like being pregnant. A girl can be further along, or less far along in her pregnancy. But I mean really, she can't call herself a virgin because she didn't do doggy. That's not really how virginity works.

taneq 7y ago
> But I'd bet you could sign the vast majority of people up for a world where every single child rapist goes to prison. Depends how many innocent people also go to prison, doesn't it? At one end of the scale you have Benjamin Franklin's "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved" and at the other end you have China's pragmatic take that a few broken eggs is the price of an omelette.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >At one end of the scale you have Benjamin Franklin's "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved" and at the other end you have China's ... But you're still arguing at the extremes and evading the central question of whether everyone is treated equally under the law. If the law rules, then everyone will be treated equally under it. Yet we find that in nearly every place on Earth, the law does not rule, because not everyone is treated equally under it. (And I only say "nearly" because I'm not 100% sure that there isn't some society out there that treats everyone equally. I'm 99.99% positive there is not, but I've not been everywhere in this world. But I'm 100% sure we don't have such a system in the US, because I'm an American, and I know America.) All that said, even debating the extremes, I mean, how many times you see some old black guy getting out of prison after 31 years or whatever because he didn't do it? You say, "See! He got out. So there must be Rule of Law!" But that's not how it works, because if there was Rule of Law, it would have been illegal to put him into prison in the first place. It was not. So again, we, ourselves, don't practice the whole "...better 100 guilty persons escape..." maxim. You can say, "Well, there are racial complications." or "Well, there are financial issues that go into legal representation too." or etc etc etc. But that's the same as saying that the law is not paramount.