35 ms·

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 ev

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.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    That's not how the law was written. The law, as written, is that "Insiders" (aka: Officers, Board Members, etc. etc.), and those who those insiders talk to (ie: employees, family members, etc. etc.), are not allowed to trade on the information they know about. The law never considered Congressmen, who might know something because of their position. ------ The law, as written, is "X people, and people who talk to those X people, are not allowed to trade securities based on information they know about". Your characterization of "X people except the emperor" is blatantly wrong and fundamentally misunderstands how the law is written.
    - hayst4ck 4y ago
      Why do you think it is illegal (de jure illegal) for officers, board members, etc., etc. to trade on the information they know about? Why was that law written?

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.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  That's not how the law was written. The law, as written, is that "Insiders" (aka: Officers, Board Members, etc. etc.), and those who those insiders talk to (ie: employees, family members, etc. etc.), are not allowed to trade on the information they know about. The law never considered Congressmen, who might know something because of their position. ------ The law, as written, is "X people, and people who talk to those X people, are not allowed to trade securities based on information they know about". Your characterization of "X people except the emperor" is blatantly wrong and fundamentally misunderstands how the law is written.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    Why do you think it is illegal (de jure illegal) for officers, board members, etc., etc. to trade on the information they know about? Why was that law written?