3 ms·

Surely if America was founded on the rule of law and respect for authority, they wouldn't have committed treason and overthrown the King? It would seem to me t

Surely if America was founded on the rule of law and respect for authority, they wouldn't have committed treason and overthrown the King? It would seem to me that America was very much founded on the opposite. A lot of the constitution seems to be focussed on limiting the power of law, not limiting the power of the people (the right to bear arms being the clearest example).

Kaizyn 11y ago
One of America's great strengths has always been its respect for authority and commitment to law and order. The founders of America were also realists and they knew that governments tend to accrue power when left the opportunity to do so. Having an armed citizenry serves as a protective measure of last resort and was based on the model of Switzerland. The intent is not to allow people to run around shooting people up as a form of protest against lawful government action; but as a means to protect against unlawful government tyranny.
- pjc50 11y ago
  There's a sneaky distinction there between lawful and unlawful. The problems in US policing seem to involve killings by police that are declared to be lawful after an inadequate process of investigation and prosecution. Not to mention that until Loving v. Virginia inter-racial marriage was unlawful. Presumably the enforcement of that would not itself count as "unlawful tyranny"? Despite actually being a serious impairment to social freedom. (The 2nd amendment setup is in practice very different to the model of Switzerland, and is used to justify private gun ownership for private security reasons and private fears of black crime, not public/state security) Edit on lawfulness: man fires unregistered handgun into crowd, kills one injures one, is not convicted of anything. Guess why. http://crookedtimber.org/2015/04/28/no-justice-for-rekia-boyd-either/ http://crookedtimber.org/2015/04/28/no-justice-for-rekia-boy...
- atom-morgan 11y ago
  > but as a means to protect against unlawful government tyranny. We're at that point.
- meandthebean 11y ago
  > Having an armed citizenry serves as a protective measure of last resort and was based on the model of Switzerland. The intent is not to allow people to run around shooting people up as a form of protest against lawful government action; but as a means to protect against unlawful government tyranny. From the article: > It used to be said — correctly — that the patrolman on the beat on any American police force was the last perfect tyranny. Absent a herd of reliable witnesses, there were things he could do to deny you your freedom or kick your ass that were between him, you, and the street. The smartphone with its small, digital camera, is a revolution in civil liberties. Unlawful government tyranny, in the form of cops doing whatever they want, is exactly what the riots are about.
Kaizyn 11y ago
With respect to your other point about the King. The American colonists adopted the position that the unrepresentative government of the King was illegitimate and needed to be abolished. The United Kingdon has since acknowledged that this was correct by granting local representative government to Canada and Australia among other places.
- pjc50 11y ago
  It was still - at the time it happened - unlawful. (Also, rule of law and respect for authority come into direct conflict when the authorities act unlawfully, which is what you're covering for)
rhino369 11y ago
America had the most conservative, violent revolution I can think of. The rule of law at the colony level was never really challenged. Each colonial government, which did the day to day governing, stayed in power. Even the Declaration of Independence occurred via a vote of the government. And it was written as an indictment against the King. It made legal arguments. He was violating their rights as English subjects. Americans have a very strong respect for the rule of law. The Supreme Court is unelected, has no power, no money, no army, no police force or agents to carry out it's will. Yet it the absolute final word and Americans follow it. The constitution isn't an example of the limitation of the power of law, it's the greatest example of the extreme power the law has in America. The rule of law is so strong that the constitution (a law) can override the will of the President, the congress and the people.

Kaizyn 11y ago

One of America's great strengths has always been its respect for authority and commitment to law and order. The founders of America were also realists and they knew that governments tend to accrue power when left the opportunity to do so. Having an armed citizenry serves as a protective measure of last resort and was based on the model of Switzerland. The intent is not to allow people to run around shooting people up as a form of protest against lawful government action; but as a means to protect against unlawful government tyranny.

pjc50 11y ago
There's a sneaky distinction there between lawful and unlawful. The problems in US policing seem to involve killings by police that are declared to be lawful after an inadequate process of investigation and prosecution. Not to mention that until Loving v. Virginia inter-racial marriage was unlawful. Presumably the enforcement of that would not itself count as "unlawful tyranny"? Despite actually being a serious impairment to social freedom. (The 2nd amendment setup is in practice very different to the model of Switzerland, and is used to justify private gun ownership for private security reasons and private fears of black crime, not public/state security) Edit on lawfulness: man fires unregistered handgun into crowd, kills one injures one, is not convicted of anything. Guess why. http://crookedtimber.org/2015/04/28/no-justice-for-rekia-boyd-either/ http://crookedtimber.org/2015/04/28/no-justice-for-rekia-boy...
atom-morgan 11y ago
> but as a means to protect against unlawful government tyranny. We're at that point.
meandthebean 11y ago
> Having an armed citizenry serves as a protective measure of last resort and was based on the model of Switzerland. The intent is not to allow people to run around shooting people up as a form of protest against lawful government action; but as a means to protect against unlawful government tyranny. From the article: > It used to be said — correctly — that the patrolman on the beat on any American police force was the last perfect tyranny. Absent a herd of reliable witnesses, there were things he could do to deny you your freedom or kick your ass that were between him, you, and the street. The smartphone with its small, digital camera, is a revolution in civil liberties. Unlawful government tyranny, in the form of cops doing whatever they want, is exactly what the riots are about.

Kaizyn 11y ago

With respect to your other point about the King. The American colonists adopted the position that the unrepresentative government of the King was illegitimate and needed to be abolished. The United Kingdon has since acknowledged that this was correct by granting local representative government to Canada and Australia among other places.

pjc50 11y ago
It was still - at the time it happened - unlawful. (Also, rule of law and respect for authority come into direct conflict when the authorities act unlawfully, which is what you're covering for)

rhino369 11y ago

America had the most conservative, violent revolution I can think of. The rule of law at the colony level was never really challenged. Each colonial government, which did the day to day governing, stayed in power. Even the Declaration of Independence occurred via a vote of the government. And it was written as an indictment against the King. It made legal arguments. He was violating their rights as English subjects. Americans have a very strong respect for the rule of law. The Supreme Court is unelected, has no power, no money, no army, no police force or agents to carry out it's will. Yet it the absolute final word and Americans follow it. The constitution isn't an example of the limitation of the power of law, it's the greatest example of the extreme power the law has in America. The rule of law is so strong that the constitution (a law) can override the will of the President, the congress and the people.