3 ms·

The thing about rule law is that it's not about critical mass. It's the edge cases that are important. It's easy to have justice the majority of the time. If

The thing about rule law is that it's not about critical mass. It's the edge cases that are important. It's easy to have justice the majority of the time. If the state can arbitrarily subvert the rules just because they think it's really really important, that's not rule of law. I know you're not arguing that it is, you're more talking about public opinion. I think you're probably right. But I wish that weren't the reality.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Well, perhaps we can see things on a line from perfect rule of law to perfect authoritarianism, with the understanding that no state is ever completely at one end or the other. I think we're still less than half way to authoritarianism.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  All governments demand obedience. That's why they have a monopoly on violence. Any entity which wields a monopoly on violence for the purpose of controlling the actions of others is authoritarian in nature. I can't imagine what you mean by "perfect rule of law", but I do know it isn't the antithesis of authoritarianism. The opposite of strict obedience to authority is no obedience to authority -- meaning no hierarchy -- or anarchy. My point is, we're judging how authoritarian a dictator is based on how benevolent they are. While a dictator is capable of ruling.. "equitably", the fact is you still have a dictator who could change his mind tomorrow. So it's not that we're mad about having a dictator, we're just mad this dictator is being a bigger ass hole than yesterday.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    That's a good point about anarchy. Although anarchy and authoritarianism are opposites, they behave in very similar ways: the people with power call the shots as they please. In the middle, you could say we have perfect rule of law. This means that no officials act as if they are above the law, and that every moral injustice is handled by some law or another. Clearly we'll never have that. So the first continuum I proposed is actually one half of the continuum between anarchy and authoritarianism.
JabavuAdams 13y ago
Well, the obvious answer is that the rule of law is a fiction. As you point out, even if it's true for most of us, most of the time, it's the edge cases (abuses) that matter most.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

Well, perhaps we can see things on a line from perfect rule of law to perfect authoritarianism, with the understanding that no state is ever completely at one end or the other. I think we're still less than half way to authoritarianism.

smokeyj 13y ago
All governments demand obedience. That's why they have a monopoly on violence. Any entity which wields a monopoly on violence for the purpose of controlling the actions of others is authoritarian in nature. I can't imagine what you mean by "perfect rule of law", but I do know it isn't the antithesis of authoritarianism. The opposite of strict obedience to authority is no obedience to authority -- meaning no hierarchy -- or anarchy. My point is, we're judging how authoritarian a dictator is based on how benevolent they are. While a dictator is capable of ruling.. "equitably", the fact is you still have a dictator who could change his mind tomorrow. So it's not that we're mad about having a dictator, we're just mad this dictator is being a bigger ass hole than yesterday.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  That's a good point about anarchy. Although anarchy and authoritarianism are opposites, they behave in very similar ways: the people with power call the shots as they please. In the middle, you could say we have perfect rule of law. This means that no officials act as if they are above the law, and that every moral injustice is handled by some law or another. Clearly we'll never have that. So the first continuum I proposed is actually one half of the continuum between anarchy and authoritarianism.

JabavuAdams 13y ago

Well, the obvious answer is that the rule of law is a fiction. As you point out, even if it's true for most of us, most of the time, it's the edge cases (abuses) that matter most.