4 ms·
The confusion is that that doesn’t follow, at all. [edit] it occurs to me that this is a term of art you may be unfamiliar with, so reading it in an unusual se
by vundercind 2y ago
The confusion is that that doesn’t follow, at all.
[edit] it occurs to me that this is a term of art you may be unfamiliar with, so reading it in an unusual sense:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
Basically, it’s a super-important thing to have if you want to live in a “developed” country that doesn’t have all kinds of very-bad problems, and isn’t some proxy for level-of-authoritarianism, which is how it seems you’ve read it. It’s about actual and perceived equal treatment under and efficacy of the law, not how much law (if you will) you have. A minarchist libertarian state would sensibly seek to have high rule-of-law, for instance.
- latency-guy2 2y agoI'm not confused at all about the concept. Your stance is incomplete. "Rule of law" does not stand alone either, you've also mixed in a few concepts that frankly do not apply, but we'll ignore that for now. "Rule of law" requires government (and it's officers) be above all, both in practice and in theory. Just on the basis of who can violate rights, perceived or otherwise, and who in turn pays for the consequences, it fails in the test of "equality". And in reality, it's enshrined in multiple jurisdictions varying levels of immunity. Even if you think tax money, once assessed and collected, belongs to the government.
- vundercind 2y agoAh—you know the sense in which it was intended but, unusually (I intend this descriptively, not pejoratively), reject its definition as self-contradictory. That, I was not expecting. I don’t think we’re gonna bridge that gap productively in a comment section. Have a nice weekend (sincerely).