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 how many hours can your kids play video games?
I don't want to make enemies, I want to know why rules you make are okay, why rules other makes aren't.
@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?
@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
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
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
