5 ms·
Yes. It is used to contrast with "the rule of men." In Russia, Afghanistan, and Venezuela, the laws don't seem to matter very much; if Putin or the oligarchs/
by davidp 12y ago
Yes. It is used to contrast with "the rule of men."
In Russia, Afghanistan, and Venezuela, the laws don't seem to matter very much; if Putin or the oligarchs/warlords/chavistas want things to be a certain way, there isn't much to stop them despite laws that in theory constrain them. That's the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law, and it's antithetical to a free society.
- ethbro 12y ago"That's the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law, and it's antithetical to a free society." Not sure the rule-of-law / rule-of-men dichotomy with regards to measuring a free society is as clear cut. Civil disobedience, corporate political spending, judicial activism, selective legal enforcement at the local level, federal/state disagreement. These are not all good or all bad things.
- barrkel 12y agoRule of law is generally necessary, but not sufficient, for freedom, so far as we know human nature. Rule of men is capricious. Laws that are written up and known ahead of enforcement, and that are enforced fairly and impartially - that's rule of law. But the laws themselves may be unjust or otherwise problematic. That is, this is a lawful / chaotic axis, not a good / evil axis.
- atmosx 12y agoYou can add US and Europe to that list. Just change Putin and friends with "Bank-Name" & friends and you're good to go.
- Dylan16807 12y agoIt's a similar but lesser problem. They can break financial laws but it stops there.