5 ms·

No, "Rule of Law" means "Rechtsstaatlichkeit". What you mean is "It's law, so it's always right" i.e. "Rechtspositivismus".

kybernetyk 2y ago
Yes, Rechtsstaatlichkeit only means that the state and its organs have to follow the law themselves. It doesn't say anything about the moral quality of the laws. The Nazi state had to follow its own laws. They just had such laws that enabled the total lunacy that the 3rd Reich was. All I'm saying is: If you decouple laws from morality you get a really bad time.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  You are absolutely right saying that rule of law is not sufficient condition for the existence of modern society. It was a bit confusing still, because nobody claimed the opposite: the comment you replied to was saying rule of law is a necessity.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    It's not sufficient, but it's still necessary.
    - ivan_gammel 2y ago
      Exactly what I was saying.
      - tpoacher 2y ago
        You may have been saying this but the parent comment that spurred the discussion was making the explicit assertion that "the rule of law is the only thing holding together [...] everyone's countries, and civilized society in general". Saying that law is 'the only thing' necessary for the existence of modern society effectively means it is also a sufficient condition. So yes, someone did claim the opposite.
        ivan_gammel 2y ago
        I doubt that modern society does fulfill the sufficiency criteria [1], so „the only thing“ can be right, but also it is not the claim that it is enough for survival. [1] USA regressing to a globally disrespected oligarchy under Trump is a good example.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        Not in my wildest dreams I imagined Brazil would give the good example for prosecuting a former president who attempted a coup and that the US would fail to do the same.
        butlike 2y ago
        Why argue more when they agree with you?
- tfourb 2y ago
  > The Nazi state had to follow its own laws. They just had such laws that enabled the total lunacy that the 3rd Reich was. This is false. Even if you take the Nazi propaganda that their laws were themselves lawful (which they were not, beginning with the clearly unlawful capture of power) at face value, the Nazi regime did not adhere to its own laws and regulations. While in some cases the Nazi regime did codify a basis in law for their atrocities (i.e. excluding and expropriating jews), much of the Nazi terror both in a civil and military context would have been explicitly illegal under the law at the time. This includes the November Progroms of 1938 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novemberpogrome_1938 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novemberpogrome_1938), large parts of the Nazi's approach to warfare, as well as the entire Holocaust (the murder of more than 6 million jews and other "undesirables"), for which the Nazis did not bother to create any legal justification. While the Nazi regime was deeply bureaucratic (in that it documented its policies, orders and their results in high detail) this is not the same as "following the law". Most of the Nazi's atrocities evolved not through a process of lawmaking, but from their racist ideology and were given legitimacy through the highly personalized nature of the regime: Hitler was explicitly above the law, as were his orders, not matter if expressed through him personally or in his name by his followers.
  - mcv 2y ago
    Not sure why this comment got voted down; it's absolutely true. The rule of law means that nobody is above the law, not even the Fuehrer or president. Clearly this is not the case in many countries, but it is in some, and it should be.
    - felsokning 2y ago
      > The rule of law means that nobody is above the law If the stats from the Innocence Project are correct[1,2], then it would also mean that nobody is above being a victim of the rule of law, either. The rule of law is not infallible - and any sort of blind "rule of law" worship is akin to the worship for a dictator; its just merely dressed in different clothing. [1] - https://innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data/ https://innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data/ [2] - https://falseconfessions.org/fact-sheet/ https://falseconfessions.org/fact-sheet/
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
Ah, but legal positivism is the norm in liberal societies, and not by accident. This follows directly from the demands of liberalism which privatizes discussion of the objective real and relegates it to individual sentiment. One of the paradoxes of liberalism is that the maximization of individual liberty necessarily demotes authority and elevates power, leading to tyranny. So any appeals to the contrary are rooted in appeals to beliefs held in parallel with the liberal doctrines of the state. When Protestants ruled the US, that means some residual (often warped) Christian sensibility, because they were able to attain that consensus. But with greater competition today, that old consensus is no longer possible. Liberalism ensures that.

kybernetyk 2y ago

Yes, Rechtsstaatlichkeit only means that the state and its organs have to follow the law themselves. It doesn't say anything about the moral quality of the laws. The Nazi state had to follow its own laws. They just had such laws that enabled the total lunacy that the 3rd Reich was. All I'm saying is: If you decouple laws from morality you get a really bad time.

ivan_gammel 2y ago
You are absolutely right saying that rule of law is not sufficient condition for the existence of modern society. It was a bit confusing still, because nobody claimed the opposite: the comment you replied to was saying rule of law is a necessity.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  It's not sufficient, but it's still necessary.
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    Exactly what I was saying.
    - tpoacher 2y ago
      You may have been saying this but the parent comment that spurred the discussion was making the explicit assertion that "the rule of law is the only thing holding together [...] everyone's countries, and civilized society in general". Saying that law is 'the only thing' necessary for the existence of modern society effectively means it is also a sufficient condition. So yes, someone did claim the opposite.
      - ivan_gammel 2y ago
        I doubt that modern society does fulfill the sufficiency criteria [1], so „the only thing“ can be right, but also it is not the claim that it is enough for survival. [1] USA regressing to a globally disrespected oligarchy under Trump is a good example.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        Not in my wildest dreams I imagined Brazil would give the good example for prosecuting a former president who attempted a coup and that the US would fail to do the same.
      - butlike 2y ago
        Why argue more when they agree with you?
tfourb 2y ago
> The Nazi state had to follow its own laws. They just had such laws that enabled the total lunacy that the 3rd Reich was. This is false. Even if you take the Nazi propaganda that their laws were themselves lawful (which they were not, beginning with the clearly unlawful capture of power) at face value, the Nazi regime did not adhere to its own laws and regulations. While in some cases the Nazi regime did codify a basis in law for their atrocities (i.e. excluding and expropriating jews), much of the Nazi terror both in a civil and military context would have been explicitly illegal under the law at the time. This includes the November Progroms of 1938 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novemberpogrome_1938 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novemberpogrome_1938), large parts of the Nazi's approach to warfare, as well as the entire Holocaust (the murder of more than 6 million jews and other "undesirables"), for which the Nazis did not bother to create any legal justification. While the Nazi regime was deeply bureaucratic (in that it documented its policies, orders and their results in high detail) this is not the same as "following the law". Most of the Nazi's atrocities evolved not through a process of lawmaking, but from their racist ideology and were given legitimacy through the highly personalized nature of the regime: Hitler was explicitly above the law, as were his orders, not matter if expressed through him personally or in his name by his followers.
- mcv 2y ago
  Not sure why this comment got voted down; it's absolutely true. The rule of law means that nobody is above the law, not even the Fuehrer or president. Clearly this is not the case in many countries, but it is in some, and it should be.
  - felsokning 2y ago
    > The rule of law means that nobody is above the law If the stats from the Innocence Project are correct[1,2], then it would also mean that nobody is above being a victim of the rule of law, either. The rule of law is not infallible - and any sort of blind "rule of law" worship is akin to the worship for a dictator; its just merely dressed in different clothing. [1] - https://innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data/ https://innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data/ [2] - https://falseconfessions.org/fact-sheet/ https://falseconfessions.org/fact-sheet/

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

Ah, but legal positivism is the norm in liberal societies, and not by accident. This follows directly from the demands of liberalism which privatizes discussion of the objective real and relegates it to individual sentiment. One of the paradoxes of liberalism is that the maximization of individual liberty necessarily demotes authority and elevates power, leading to tyranny. So any appeals to the contrary are rooted in appeals to beliefs held in parallel with the liberal doctrines of the state. When Protestants ruled the US, that means some residual (often warped) Christian sensibility, because they were able to attain that consensus. But with greater competition today, that old consensus is no longer possible. Liberalism ensures that.