9 ms·

In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant. Almost every part of government is in isolat

In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant. Almost every part of government is in isolation a single point of failure to someone with a tyrannical streak, it's why most democracies end up with multiple houses/bodies and courts - supposed to act as checks and balances. So this law wouldn't alter the outcome in the slightest.

raw_anon_1111 1y ago
How has that been working in the US where both the legislation branch and judicial branch have willingly given their authority to the executive branch?
- noir_lord 1y ago
  You would think the fact that I put "supposed to act as checks and balances." in my post would answer that but apparently not.
- SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
  Yes. That has been a problem. Several states outright ignored the scotus Bruen decision.
  - Retric 1y ago
    Yea a Supreme Court ruling 110 years after a law passed only for them to reverse course 2 years later. Surely that’s based on the constitution and nothing else.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
      Is your argument that you should only listen to Supreme Court judgments that you agree with? Or is it that they have some settling in time before you need to actually pay attention to them?
- hamdingers 1y ago
  How would you expect checks and balances to work when a single party controls all the branches? Is this a serious comment?
  - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
    It seems strange (or maybe you are just young) that you think this. But both Democratic and Republican controlled Congresses have fought against excesses of their own President. The same is true for the Supreme Court in the past ruling against an administration of its own party. There was an entire coalition of “Blue Dog Democrats” that came from red states as recently as 30 years ago. Or did you really forget that even in Trumps first term that Republicans like McCain voted against Trump snd 10 voted to impeach him?
    - hamdingers 1y ago
      The party is MAGA and that party is pro-dictatorship. The behavior of republicans decades ago is irrelevant, and it's obvious that MAGA has learned lessons from Tumps first term. Perhaps it's you who haven't been paying attention? I find older people have a lot of unfounded faith in these failing institutions, but if you try to keep up you'll see this isn't the same America you grew up in.
      - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        Yes way back in 2016-2020 when dinosaurs ruled the earth.
        ryandrake 1y ago
        2016 might well have been 1916. The state of US politics is night and day different now.
        hamdingers 1y ago
        > it's obvious that MAGA has learned lessons from Tumps first term Read all the words in a comment before replying to it.
- hansvm 1y ago
  > So this law wouldn't alter the outcome in the slightest. If an unchecked tyrant exists, do they really need the paper-thin facade provided by manhandling the English language to pretend that some law supports their actions?
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    Yes because tyrants still value the symbolism of pretext.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      This is just making a slippery slope fallacy by circuitous means. The point of all laws and thus the courts is that each new action provides an opportunity to debate and decide on whether an action is lawful, and thus determine whether it should proceed. You are arguing that all such decisions would always be decided in favor of the tyrant because they're a tyrant ala a slippery slope: the law exists, all things will be declared lawful, ergo all things are allowed with no further challenge. This can certainly be true, but it doesn't naturally follow.
      - vlovich123 1y ago
        Show me a tyrant that doesn’t have rules and laws. Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Iran, China, North Korea, Sadam Hussein’s Iraq, and Russia still have law creating and law enforcing bodies. A good chunk of those countries even hold elections. Hell, even in medieval England the king didn’t have absolute authority and had to worry about political alliances abcs political support of the other nobles. You should go read the dictator’s handbook. Think about it from the perspective is the tyrant - there’s one of you. How do you establish control over groups of other people? Just ordering people around doesn’t work. You need to create a power base. You can go broad and give riches back to the people or narrow and give riches to people who have power and influence already. Dictator’s generally go the latter route because you’re not at the whim of changes in political mood and individual problems can be managed easily. But you still need to tap into symbolism and other institutions to lend yourself legitimacy to avoid uprisings.
- rolph 1y ago
  give a man a shovel, and a treasure map, but dont tell him he is digging his own grave.
- exe34 1y ago
  in that case they can just vote in whatever law they want or they can hold starving kids hostage and forbid anybody from helping - I don't think this law in particular will make any of it worse.
- xorcist 1y ago
  It sounds like you completely agree with the comment you replied to?
MangoToupe 1y ago
> In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant. Sure, but legislators should generally avoid explicitly building the on-ramp to such behavior.
miki123211 1y ago
> In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant. But that is not how tyrants actually operate, at least most of the time. The most tyrannical country possible would be a "free democratic union of independent people's republics". Democracy has been so successful that most tyrannies operate under its veneer. This is in stark contrast to how monarchies have operated historically. The trick isn't to ignore laws, but to make them so broad, meaningless and impossible to follow that you have to commit crimes to survive. You can then be selective in which of these crimes you choose to prosecute. You don't charge the human rights activist for the human rights activism. You charge them with engaging in illegal speculation for the food they bought on the black market, even though that was the only way to avoid starvation, and everybody else did it too. In the worst case scenario, you charge them with "endangering national peace", "spreading misinformation" or "delivering correspondence without possessing a government license to do so" (for giving out pamflets). "must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest" is exactly the shenanigans tyrants love. You can get away with absolutely anything with a law like that.

raw_anon_1111 1y ago

How has that been working in the US where both the legislation branch and judicial branch have willingly given their authority to the executive branch?

noir_lord 1y ago
You would think the fact that I put "supposed to act as checks and balances." in my post would answer that but apparently not.
SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
Yes. That has been a problem. Several states outright ignored the scotus Bruen decision.
- Retric 1y ago
  Yea a Supreme Court ruling 110 years after a law passed only for them to reverse course 2 years later. Surely that’s based on the constitution and nothing else.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
    Is your argument that you should only listen to Supreme Court judgments that you agree with? Or is it that they have some settling in time before you need to actually pay attention to them?
hamdingers 1y ago
How would you expect checks and balances to work when a single party controls all the branches? Is this a serious comment?
- raw_anon_1111 1y ago
  It seems strange (or maybe you are just young) that you think this. But both Democratic and Republican controlled Congresses have fought against excesses of their own President. The same is true for the Supreme Court in the past ruling against an administration of its own party. There was an entire coalition of “Blue Dog Democrats” that came from red states as recently as 30 years ago. Or did you really forget that even in Trumps first term that Republicans like McCain voted against Trump snd 10 voted to impeach him?
  - hamdingers 1y ago
    The party is MAGA and that party is pro-dictatorship. The behavior of republicans decades ago is irrelevant, and it's obvious that MAGA has learned lessons from Tumps first term. Perhaps it's you who haven't been paying attention? I find older people have a lot of unfounded faith in these failing institutions, but if you try to keep up you'll see this isn't the same America you grew up in.
    - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
      Yes way back in 2016-2020 when dinosaurs ruled the earth.
      - ryandrake 1y ago
        2016 might well have been 1916. The state of US politics is night and day different now.
      - hamdingers 1y ago
        > it's obvious that MAGA has learned lessons from Tumps first term Read all the words in a comment before replying to it.
hansvm 1y ago
> So this law wouldn't alter the outcome in the slightest. If an unchecked tyrant exists, do they really need the paper-thin facade provided by manhandling the English language to pretend that some law supports their actions?
- vlovich123 1y ago
  Yes because tyrants still value the symbolism of pretext.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    This is just making a slippery slope fallacy by circuitous means. The point of all laws and thus the courts is that each new action provides an opportunity to debate and decide on whether an action is lawful, and thus determine whether it should proceed. You are arguing that all such decisions would always be decided in favor of the tyrant because they're a tyrant ala a slippery slope: the law exists, all things will be declared lawful, ergo all things are allowed with no further challenge. This can certainly be true, but it doesn't naturally follow.
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      Show me a tyrant that doesn’t have rules and laws. Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Iran, China, North Korea, Sadam Hussein’s Iraq, and Russia still have law creating and law enforcing bodies. A good chunk of those countries even hold elections. Hell, even in medieval England the king didn’t have absolute authority and had to worry about political alliances abcs political support of the other nobles. You should go read the dictator’s handbook. Think about it from the perspective is the tyrant - there’s one of you. How do you establish control over groups of other people? Just ordering people around doesn’t work. You need to create a power base. You can go broad and give riches back to the people or narrow and give riches to people who have power and influence already. Dictator’s generally go the latter route because you’re not at the whim of changes in political mood and individual problems can be managed easily. But you still need to tap into symbolism and other institutions to lend yourself legitimacy to avoid uprisings.
rolph 1y ago
give a man a shovel, and a treasure map, but dont tell him he is digging his own grave.
exe34 1y ago
in that case they can just vote in whatever law they want or they can hold starving kids hostage and forbid anybody from helping - I don't think this law in particular will make any of it worse.
xorcist 1y ago
It sounds like you completely agree with the comment you replied to?

MangoToupe 1y ago

> In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant. Sure, but legislators should generally avoid explicitly building the on-ramp to such behavior.

miki123211 1y ago

> In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant. But that is not how tyrants actually operate, at least most of the time. The most tyrannical country possible would be a "free democratic union of independent people's republics". Democracy has been so successful that most tyrannies operate under its veneer. This is in stark contrast to how monarchies have operated historically. The trick isn't to ignore laws, but to make them so broad, meaningless and impossible to follow that you have to commit crimes to survive. You can then be selective in which of these crimes you choose to prosecute. You don't charge the human rights activist for the human rights activism. You charge them with engaging in illegal speculation for the food they bought on the black market, even though that was the only way to avoid starvation, and everybody else did it too. In the worst case scenario, you charge them with "endangering national peace", "spreading misinformation" or "delivering correspondence without possessing a government license to do so" (for giving out pamflets). "must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest" is exactly the shenanigans tyrants love. You can get away with absolutely anything with a law like that.