4 ms·
The law, as practiced in the United States, protects but does not bind elites, whereas the law binds but does not protect the lower classes.
by ChrisLTD 16d ago
The law, as practiced in the United States, protects but does not bind elites, whereas the law binds but does not protect the lower classes.
- jameskilton 16d agoIf there is one fundamental problem with our society it is this. Mercy for the rich. Justice for the poor. A healthy society does the opposite, those with much should be held to higher standards.
- dismalaf 16d agoNo, a healthy society shows mercy to the innocent, and enacts justice on the guilty.
- jameskilton 16d agoThis is a strange statement because by definition the innocent don't need mercy. Mercy is forgiveness for wrongdoing, and refusing to forgive and give mercy to some leads to a society that is cruel. As Thomas Acquinas put it: > justice without mercy is cruelty; mercy without justice is dissolution.
- dismalaf 16d agoYet government wrongs normal people who have done nothing daily. Subjects them to crime through ineffective justice, taxes them, criminalizes behaviour that rational people would consider not to be criminal, etc... In my country they'll try to prosecute you for longer jail sentences if you criticize the government than if you kill someone...
- buellerbueller 16d agotaxation is not a wrong. look at places without government, and decide if they have a better standard of living.
- logicchains 16d agoLook at the UAE, no income tax, only 9% corporate tax, GDP per capita higher than most of western Europe, and three of the top ten safest cities in the world (https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-city-rankings/safest-cities-in-the-world https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-city-rankings/safest...). GDP projected to grow 3% this year in spite of being bombed and having its main export waterway blocked. Literally over 100x lower chance of being sexually assaulted there than in the UK or France.
- turtlesdown11 16d agoSafe? > Human Rights Watch has reported on the country's ongoing unfair mass trials, restrictions of freedom of speech and abuses to migrant labour forces.[217] The annual Freedom House report on Freedom in the World has listed the United Arab Emirates as "Not Free" every year since 1999, the first year for which records are available on their website.[218] In 2025, the country ranked 18 out of 100 in terms of the freedom index, due to a lack of free elections, lack of government transparency and accountability, and a lack of free media and independent judicial system, and low scores against other metrics.[140] > At the same time, the UAE has made it illegal to disseminate online material that can threaten "public order",[375] and hands down prison terms for those who "deride or damage" the reputation of the state and "display contempt" for religion. Journalists who are arrested for violating this law are often brutally beaten by the police.[376] > Freedom of association is also severely curtailed, and in most cases, banned under existing law. In the UAE an association requires twenty individuals, none of which can have previous convictions and must be preauthorized and registered with the government.[219] All associations have to be submitted to censorship guidelines and all publications have first to be approved by the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Ara...
- buellerbueller 16d agoAre you one of those technofascists who wants to trade everyone else's privacy and freedom all in the name of "security" (read: repression of the masses) for the elite? Because, with your comment, it surely seems that way. Furthermore, your source is garbage. No methodology at all, and if you click around to try to get what might be methodology, you instead get popup spam for malware. For fuck's sake get some actual data to underpin your opinions. I think you've actually made my point for me with your example, thank you.
- owebmaster 16d agoAnd yet the same don't happen to the rich people doing the same. Which is funny as you ask for exactly that to be the case.
- stvltvs 16d agoWhich is basically Wilhoit's Law, an attempt to define conservatism. edit: For those who don't want to look it up, Wilhoit's law is usually stated like this: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
- psunavy03 16d agoLife's so much easier when you can just caricature the people you disagree with, innit?
- stvltvs 16d agoFWIW I don't agree with Wilhoit, just explaining where the idea came from.
- FLeXMurphy 16d agoTo back up stvltvs, the OP did more or less just use the one-liner as a zinger. "Protects but doesn't bind X, binds but doesn't protect Y" is the caricature, really. I'm sure you can find more floating examples on HN of it because it is a very lazy, midwit flex that signals the in-group the person spends too much time on the internet.
- SoftTalker 16d agoWas there ever a time when this was not the case?
- ChrisLTD 16d agoThere are degrees. Bernie Madoff died in prison. AT&T was broken up. Microsoft was strictly regulated.
- SoftTalker 16d agoMadoff's mistake was that he conned rich people.
- ChrisLTD 16d agoAnd the other two?
- giancarlostoro 16d agoThe law, as practiced in the United States, is Schrodinger's law, it magically changes if you observe it. As an example, if me and 10 others commit the same crime, in the same city, get caught by the same cop, processed by the same judge, even all somehow hire the same lawyer to defend and represent us, I'm willing to bet we would all get completely inconsistent sentencing. None of us need to be politicians or elites either. There's definitely judges who don't care how much money you have, they'll treat you like anyone else, or with extreme prejudice.