4 ms·

The test for rule of law is simple: Are there consequences for billionaires or politicians who break the law or violate ethics. That answer is clearly no. The

The test for rule of law is simple: Are there consequences for billionaires or politicians who break the law or violate ethics. That answer is clearly no. The fact Nancy Pelosi can shout on a loudspeaker that she has a right to trade the stock of companies she regulates is clear evidence that we do not have rule of law. Equally clear evidence is that a former president was able to attempt to overthrow the government and neither him nor his apparatus/enablers (Fox/McConnell) are experiencing meaningful consequences, only his foot soldiers. When peasants get plea bargains and the rich and powerful get "due process," that is how you know that there is no rule of law. The only reason it looks remotely like we have rule of law is because the power of our billionaires and politicians is fairly diffuse. As that power becomes more concentrated (and it seems clear that our policies concentrate wealth and power) it will be more and more clear that what we perceive as rule of law is the powerful vying for power. It is not the law that provides consequences to powerful people, but other powerful people exercising their own power.

dragontamer 4y ago
> The fact Nancy Pelosi can shout on a loudspeaker that she has a right to trade the stock of companies she regulates is clear evidence that we do not have rule of law. Which law is she breaking? Rule of law means following the law. Not making up new laws that you think are good and just following them before they're written down. ------- Rule of law doesn't mean our laws are perfect. It just means that people follow the laws. Eventually, we work to improve our laws and make them better, but this is a second issue to simply rule of law in the first place. We cannot improve our laws if we do not follow them first. The fundamental step here is following the law. ---------- > Equally clear evidence is that a former president was able to attempt to overthrow the government and neither him nor his apparatus/enablers (Fox/McConnell) are experiencing meaningful consequences, only his foot soldiers. Which law did Trump break? Well, the answer is possibly a lot, but its going through the courts right now. As well as Jan. 6th Committee. There is due-process in our laws. We don't just punish people before their trial.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation. A country can say our emperor makes all the laws, the emperor could write them down. Would you say they have rule of law because there is a written law? There could be a law that the empreror can selectively enforce the laws, would they have rule of law? Just because there are laws in books with an apparatus to enforce them does not mean there is rule of law.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation. EDIT: Cool. But which _law_ is she breaking? That apparatus cannot operate unless there is a law written down first describing that ethic. One of the most important principles of legal theory is that you cannot retroactively punish someone for breaking a law before the law was written down. You can only punish people _AFTER_ writing down a law. Punishing people _before_ the law is written is blatant tyranny. Just because YOU disagree with the law doesn't mean that the law isn't working, or that the "rule of law" is failing. It just means that you disagree with the law and want to change it.
    - hayst4ck 4y ago
      > You can only punish people _AFTER_ writing down a law. Punishing people _before_ the law is written is blatant tyranny. Yes. So I have any from a set of simple laws. "Hayst4ck can decide when people have broken the law," or alternatively "Hayst4ck can punish people he deems likely to break the law" or alternatively "It is against the law to make hayst4ck feel questioned." "It is against the law to cause disharmony in Hayst4ck-topia as decided by hayst4ck." If those laws are written down, is there rule of law? Just because there are laws written down in books is irrelevant to the status of rule of law. Rule of law is about more than written down and enforced laws. I cant insider trade, but Pelosi coordinates non public decisions that have great consequence to companies, sometimes directly giving them money and she can trade their stocks. To me that is clearly a situation of "rules for thee but not for me," which is the antithesis of rule of law. The article itself lays down a definition: "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws." That means you have to ask if she is arbitrarily exercising power. I would say restricting other people from self enriching in a way that she herself is self enriching is an arbitrary exercise of power. So from my point of view that is an egregious violation of the idea of rule of law.
pyuser583 4y ago
That’s a terrible test. “It is better for ten guilty people to found innocent than for one innocent person to be found guilty” - is one of the our bedrock principles. The wealthy and powerful are regularly charged with crimes in America - Epstein, Bannon, etc. The poor face the brunt of legal prosecution more often, but he wealthy and powerful are far from immune.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  When it comes to rich people do you think due process leads to more justice or less justice? When it comes to politicians do you think due process leads to more justice or less justice? When it comes to police officers do you think due process leads to more justice or less justice? When it comes to poor people do you think they get due process? When it comes to poor people do you think due process leads to more justice or less justice? I think when powerful people get "due process" (as it exists) that leads to less justice. I think poor people are often robbed of their due process, but when they receive it, it likely leads to more justice. I think the ten guilty to one innocent statement denies the quite literal economics of our justice system. If you have resources you can be treated "more fairly" than others. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if for every 10 guilty billionaires 9 were found innocent, while for every 10 guilty poor people, 11 were found guilty. I guess the question is how could we falsify this (my and probably others) belief, since this is an intuition rather than a well informed stance?
m463 4y ago
Isn't that kind of backwards? With respect to the rule of law, wouldn't it be more like: Can the freedom/rights of a person be solely determined by a billionaire or politician or by the law?
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  How do you feel about the sentence: billionaires pay politicians to write laws? Regardless of the truth of that sentence, I think it muddies the idea of where the authority lies. That's why I think a rather agnostic way to look at it is more interesting. Who do laws apply to and how are they applied? Laws always apply to those without power no matter the society, so it's only interesting how laws apply to those with power or if laws that apply to those in power are written at all.
  - m463 4y ago
    Sure rich and powerful people have great influence on society, and there can be bad laws. But the people the laws are applied to have due process and can appeal to a court.
    - hayst4ck 4y ago
      If powerful people are powerful enough to exempt themselves from laws (from the laws themselves not the enforcement), regardless of if it is de facto exemption or de jure exemption, would you say that there is rule of law?

dragontamer 4y ago

> The fact Nancy Pelosi can shout on a loudspeaker that she has a right to trade the stock of companies she regulates is clear evidence that we do not have rule of law. Which law is she breaking? Rule of law means following the law. Not making up new laws that you think are good and just following them before they're written down. ------- Rule of law doesn't mean our laws are perfect. It just means that people follow the laws. Eventually, we work to improve our laws and make them better, but this is a second issue to simply rule of law in the first place. We cannot improve our laws if we do not follow them first. The fundamental step here is following the law. ---------- > Equally clear evidence is that a former president was able to attempt to overthrow the government and neither him nor his apparatus/enablers (Fox/McConnell) are experiencing meaningful consequences, only his foot soldiers. Which law did Trump break? Well, the answer is possibly a lot, but its going through the courts right now. As well as Jan. 6th Committee. There is due-process in our laws. We don't just punish people before their trial.

hayst4ck 4y ago
She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation. A country can say our emperor makes all the laws, the emperor could write them down. Would you say they have rule of law because there is a written law? There could be a law that the empreror can selectively enforce the laws, would they have rule of law? Just because there are laws in books with an apparatus to enforce them does not mean there is rule of law.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation. EDIT: Cool. But which _law_ is she breaking? That apparatus cannot operate unless there is a law written down first describing that ethic. One of the most important principles of legal theory is that you cannot retroactively punish someone for breaking a law before the law was written down. You can only punish people _AFTER_ writing down a law. Punishing people _before_ the law is written is blatant tyranny. Just because YOU disagree with the law doesn't mean that the law isn't working, or that the "rule of law" is failing. It just means that you disagree with the law and want to change it.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    > You can only punish people _AFTER_ writing down a law. Punishing people _before_ the law is written is blatant tyranny. Yes. So I have any from a set of simple laws. "Hayst4ck can decide when people have broken the law," or alternatively "Hayst4ck can punish people he deems likely to break the law" or alternatively "It is against the law to make hayst4ck feel questioned." "It is against the law to cause disharmony in Hayst4ck-topia as decided by hayst4ck." If those laws are written down, is there rule of law? Just because there are laws written down in books is irrelevant to the status of rule of law. Rule of law is about more than written down and enforced laws. I cant insider trade, but Pelosi coordinates non public decisions that have great consequence to companies, sometimes directly giving them money and she can trade their stocks. To me that is clearly a situation of "rules for thee but not for me," which is the antithesis of rule of law. The article itself lays down a definition: "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws." That means you have to ask if she is arbitrarily exercising power. I would say restricting other people from self enriching in a way that she herself is self enriching is an arbitrary exercise of power. So from my point of view that is an egregious violation of the idea of rule of law.

pyuser583 4y ago

That’s a terrible test. “It is better for ten guilty people to found innocent than for one innocent person to be found guilty” - is one of the our bedrock principles. The wealthy and powerful are regularly charged with crimes in America - Epstein, Bannon, etc. The poor face the brunt of legal prosecution more often, but he wealthy and powerful are far from immune.

hayst4ck 4y ago
When it comes to rich people do you think due process leads to more justice or less justice? When it comes to politicians do you think due process leads to more justice or less justice? When it comes to police officers do you think due process leads to more justice or less justice? When it comes to poor people do you think they get due process? When it comes to poor people do you think due process leads to more justice or less justice? I think when powerful people get "due process" (as it exists) that leads to less justice. I think poor people are often robbed of their due process, but when they receive it, it likely leads to more justice. I think the ten guilty to one innocent statement denies the quite literal economics of our justice system. If you have resources you can be treated "more fairly" than others. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if for every 10 guilty billionaires 9 were found innocent, while for every 10 guilty poor people, 11 were found guilty. I guess the question is how could we falsify this (my and probably others) belief, since this is an intuition rather than a well informed stance?

m463 4y ago

Isn't that kind of backwards? With respect to the rule of law, wouldn't it be more like: Can the freedom/rights of a person be solely determined by a billionaire or politician or by the law?

hayst4ck 4y ago
How do you feel about the sentence: billionaires pay politicians to write laws? Regardless of the truth of that sentence, I think it muddies the idea of where the authority lies. That's why I think a rather agnostic way to look at it is more interesting. Who do laws apply to and how are they applied? Laws always apply to those without power no matter the society, so it's only interesting how laws apply to those with power or if laws that apply to those in power are written at all.
- m463 4y ago
  Sure rich and powerful people have great influence on society, and there can be bad laws. But the people the laws are applied to have due process and can appeal to a court.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    If powerful people are powerful enough to exempt themselves from laws (from the laws themselves not the enforcement), regardless of if it is de facto exemption or de jure exemption, would you say that there is rule of law?