4 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoIt's not sufficient, but it's still necessary.
- ivan_gammel 2y agoExactly what I was saying.
- tpoacher 2y agoYou 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 agoI 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 agoNot 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 agoWhy argue more when they agree with you?