Hey,look, I am not saying reason and justice are being applied. I am only stating the very obvious which is contradicted by US law. Going beyond specicific gov

Hey,look, I am not saying reason and justice are being applied. I am only stating the very obvious which is contradicted by US law. Going beyond specicific government and legal systems, the rule of law itself has no authority to rule in a manner that contradicts basic reason and logic. You cannot have the law declare bees are a type of fish, which (a court in california did this recently for environmental reasons), but no one has the obligation to follow that law because its claims are demonstrably in conflict with reason and logic as any reasonable person would see it. They can declare corporations have certain rights but if those rights depend on corporations being a person of any kind, unless you can also claim and prove that regular reasonable people with no conflicts of interest in the subject matter can also agree with you in that asserion being reasonable and logical, then that law is based on something that exceeds the boundary of the contract between the rulers and the ruled under the rule of law. Now, if we were ruled by the decrees and judgements of an individual, the rule of man that is, this ruler can declare rocks are people, the sky is actually not blue but a hint of pink, babies are delivered by storks and anything else and we have to go along with it. The very premise of the rule of law is that the ruled can understand the rules using reason and logic so that they can follow them. Otherwise, you are not following the law but the decrees and will of the rule makers blindly. You don't have to like or agree with a law but it needs to make logical sense for it to have authority and for the ruled to say anything other than "fear if punishment is the only reason we are doing this, even though it makes no sense at all" which is no different than the rule of man except you noted down the decrees on paper.