3 ms·

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 ha

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.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > As proposed, Regulation FD defined any "person acting on behalf of an issuer" as "any officer, director, employee, or agent of an issuer, who discloses material nonpublic information while acting within the scope of his or her authority." https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm Is Nancy Pelosi an "Officer, director, employee, agent of an issuer" to the stocks that she's trading? Have you read the law that you're complaining about? At all?
    - hayst4ck 4y ago
      If you would try to answer some of the questions I asked, you will understand that this is completely irrelevant to the point I am trying to make and I wrote everything I said accounting for this response. If I were an emperor and I wrote a law that said: "Nobody can trade with privileged information but me." Would there be rule of law?
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > If you would try to answer some of the questions I asked And you need to answer one question to me because its all that matters. Which law did Nancy Pelosi break in your example? That's all that matters for rule of law. Whether or not people follow the law. If people are following the law, then we have rule of law. Your hypotheticals are distractions that should be ignored. ----- Maybe your set of crappy laws are bad and awful. But they don't describe the US Code. If you want to criticize US Code, you need to do a better job at understanding it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text As it turns out, it is written far better than you seem to think. Yes, there's always contradictions and edge cases that get funny. But for the most part, the USA's laws are clear (if a bit arcane and verbose).
        hayst4ck 4y ago
        If you think that if everyone followed the "no one except the emperor can trade with privileged information" law then there is rule of law, then we have irreconcilable axioms in our belief systems and will never be able to see eye to eye.
KerrAvon 4y ago
It’s not against the law! I agree that she shouldn’t do it and that the law should change so that she can’t. But presently-legal congressional sleaze is not relevant to the discussion here.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  What does "rule of law" mean to you? What kind of other "rule of ____" exist? How might you determine how you are ruled?

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.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > As proposed, Regulation FD defined any "person acting on behalf of an issuer" as "any officer, director, employee, or agent of an issuer, who discloses material nonpublic information while acting within the scope of his or her authority." https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm Is Nancy Pelosi an "Officer, director, employee, agent of an issuer" to the stocks that she's trading? Have you read the law that you're complaining about? At all?
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    If you would try to answer some of the questions I asked, you will understand that this is completely irrelevant to the point I am trying to make and I wrote everything I said accounting for this response. If I were an emperor and I wrote a law that said: "Nobody can trade with privileged information but me." Would there be rule of law?
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > If you would try to answer some of the questions I asked And you need to answer one question to me because its all that matters. Which law did Nancy Pelosi break in your example? That's all that matters for rule of law. Whether or not people follow the law. If people are following the law, then we have rule of law. Your hypotheticals are distractions that should be ignored. ----- Maybe your set of crappy laws are bad and awful. But they don't describe the US Code. If you want to criticize US Code, you need to do a better job at understanding it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text As it turns out, it is written far better than you seem to think. Yes, there's always contradictions and edge cases that get funny. But for the most part, the USA's laws are clear (if a bit arcane and verbose).
      - hayst4ck 4y ago
        If you think that if everyone followed the "no one except the emperor can trade with privileged information" law then there is rule of law, then we have irreconcilable axioms in our belief systems and will never be able to see eye to eye.

KerrAvon 4y ago

It’s not against the law! I agree that she shouldn’t do it and that the law should change so that she can’t. But presently-legal congressional sleaze is not relevant to the discussion here.

hayst4ck 4y ago
What does "rule of law" mean to you? What kind of other "rule of ____" exist? How might you determine how you are ruled?