I'm just really tired of people being upset about "the rule of law" and "threat to democracy".
Fuck Democracy, fuck the rule of law... Specifically FUCK RULE. Rule implies someone who makes the rules, and, everyone else who submits to them, or gets shot.
I don't wanna live in a state ruled by Donald Trump, but I don't want one ruled by Kamala Harris either. The problem is rule. Of law or of dictators or of pseudo-majority or otherwise.
Get rid of the rule and we can talk.
@dlakelan okay, rules they agree to is fine. So, a leader that come up with rules you could agree with would be fine?
Ps. You sound like a lovely dad, I hope the best for you and your kids.
@ekg
Yes for a fully mentally developed adult a ruler who in every instance agrees with them would be fine. Fortunately that person already exists! Themselves!
@ekg
Note that my sister works with seriously mentally ill people and I don't have good answers for those people. Under enforced medications they usually thank her for helping them. When they go off those meds they don't want to get back on and radically prefer to attack people and light their bed on fire... So don't ask me about them I don't have answers.
@dlakelan many that argues like you would belive those people shouldn't exist. I am glad you make it explicit they are just as valuable as everyone else, and acknowledge what proves your argument. Instead of ignoring it.
I object to the binary of "legally fit adult" and "has no rights". Some of my best friends are regulars at mental institutions, a consequence of living with a difficult mind myself.
@ekg
Mentally ill are still people. They have value. But of course we can't let them set fire to others or attack them with samurai swords even if they do it out of a sincere belief that aliens are taking over the world... Their situation is just qualitatively different from the norm and needs subtle careful and different type of thought.
@dlakelan do people have a right to live on streets that are safe from cars?, isn't it then on us not to drive cars on streets*? What can we say about people that do?
I would argue that a rule no sane person would brake is fine. As the only person that breaks it isn't of sound mind.
*or at least drive at safe speeds, often far less the the speed limit
Let's utilize some jargon to distinguish concepts. It's a "rule" that you should change your oil about every 4000 miles or something, that's not what I'm against, that's not what I'm referring to when I say fuck rule of law. Law in this context could be replaced with command by a member of a ruling class and enforced by a special enforcement class. Norms or rules developed by communities organically are not "rule of law" in this jargon. And neither is organic enforcement.
@ekg
It's hierarchy and govt of lawmakers with police against subjects who must submit that is the topic of my original post.
ICE and the FBI are empowered to "enforce laws" made by people like Trump and Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein. This results in many many harms. You have no say for example in whether it's ok for you to show movies to big groups of your friends in your front yard. It violates copyright, end of story, FBI warning is right there.
You seem to criticise rule by law. I link a less then perfect source*:
https://vannormanlaw.com/rule-law-vs-rule-law/
*they seem to have some questionable views.
@ekg
I criticize RULE (not rules, but one group forcing their will on another group by systematic threat of force)
You are describing "rule by law". Not rule of law.
"The laws governing society must be
known, with none in society (including law-makers) outside the law or favoured before it.“ - linked article describing rule of law.
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/initiatives/Rule/2021-01_RuleofLawvsRulebyLaw.pdf
@ekg
I don't really care if my rulers write down what they want me to do, or if they on a whim decide this afternoon, I still want them gone (I do prefer one to the other but I hate them both). Let me give you an analogy in dog training.
@ekg
I have a dog who together with my family is the love of my life she is absolutely the sweetest thing. When I want her to do something I give her a signal and she has learned that if she follows the task I have signaled her to do she will get a treat and so she does the thing because it's to her benefit. I'm not ruling the dog we are coming to a mutual understanding of benefit for both of us. On the other hand some people treat their dog differently when they give a
voice or hand signal command if their dog doesn't carry out the task they indicate they hit the dog in the nose with a newspaper or they jerk on a choke collar with prongs or they cause a electric shock and so the dog learns that there's a ruler the person and there is the dog who will be harmed if they do not submit. @ekg
@ekg
Under governments people, everyday people, are like the second dog the one which is told what it will do and how it will be harmed if it doesn't do it. That is what I'm against.
@dlakelan my perspective is written as well, or better, as I could in the article I linked.
Rule of law has nothing to do with whatever rulers write down their rules or not. It has everything to do with the legal order of the state.
The point is with rule of law, it is the law that rule. Not people.
@ekg
There is no such think as laws ruling. That's just a legitimation propaganda. It's the cops with the guns who rule over the people, and the politicians who rule over the cops. In the absence of those two groups no law would get written and no law would be enforced and so we would have Anarchy where each person is free to do what they want and to accept the consequences of their actions as they cause others to respond.
@dlakelan I haven't met a cop in months, I still follow the law. And no I don't do it from fear, I don't fear cops. I do it because it's very difficult to break the law, and it comes with little benefit to break it.
Laws are standards of conduct, if people chosen to follow them they rule.
Mutual beneficial my ass*, it's wage slavery.
*assuming you are applying this analogy on a person.
@ekg
My dog is not capable of taking care of herself acquiring food avoiding being hit by cars she was actually rescued from a field where she was slowly starving to death so yes it's definitely mutually beneficial she would undoubtedly be dead several years ago if I hadn't rescued her and taken care of her
@ekg
If she doesn't sit when I ask her to sit I don't withhold her necessary food I don't make things so she would have to live under a bridge and find scraps in trash cans.
@ekg
If you ask someone to fix your car and they say that they're too busy and can't do it and then you don't pay them you're certainly not enslaving them. The wage slavery you are referring to come specifically from the rule of law which says you cannot use the land and the resources made by other people in the past without permission of those who have an ownership title registered with the government that's what makes it wage slavery
@ekg
By forcibly withholding the means of sustainance via the operation of police and legal machinery.
Apply your logic on a parson and you're a monster.
For further reading: https://scottburdick-com.medium.com/the-myth-of-the-benevolent-slave-owner-6cf0a09b3f3a
@dlakelan so far their exist no air between our positions.
Besides one I fully believe in the necessity of the state, common rules. Their exist uncountable circumstances where one need to act on the behalf of the many.
Who decides the shape and size of a shipping container? Their exist only one ISO.
@ekg
ISO is not a hierarchical rulemaking body. If you make an alternative size shipping container they don't come with guns and make you stop.
@dlakelan neither will you get your non-conforming container shipped. The same way that if I complained about my mother's cooking I wouldn't be served anything else.
Their exist a difference between conform and we will work with you, and shooting with guns.
One of NATOs most effective tool of conformance is the lack of ability to render non-conforming aid to partners.
@ekg
That's not what I'm arguing against though. Free association, stipulations about what is acceptable to others, and negotiation are all great! Im arguing against command and subservience, the use of violence to make others do things they don't want to do, and specifically the legitimation of that violence... Ie. When ICE hauls people off the street to gulags people say "well that's what the law says" so it's "ok"
@dlakelan fuck ICE.
The rule of law is meant to constrain those that would do harm to others. Most importantly fascists.
Their exist plenty of reason to rebuild democratic institutions in the US to defend against fascism.
And of course, fuck ICE.
@ekg
My kids don't like it when they play video games all day, they want tools to help them keep from doing an addictive thing. When they truly want more time for a good reason, they ask for it and I give it to them. But beyond that, children are literally not fully developed in their mental capacity. Are you arguing that Harris or Trump should rule because the rest of us don't have fully functional brains yet?