To be very clear, we do live in a world where the distinction between legal and illegal, right and wrong, matters. And we will always live in that world.
Not to pick a fight with you. It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.
All societies exist on a "law" to "rule" spectrum, what determines whether you have law or rule is who the final arbiters of justice are.
If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society. If those with power are the final arbiters of justice, then you live in a society with rules, not laws.
The absence of law is rule by those who are most powerful. The explicit purpose of law is to prevent arbitrary wielding of power.
With this understanding he's correct, because law is an entirely self fulfilling prophecy. If GP does not wish to enforce the rule of law himself, then there is no law.
The preamble of the declaration of independence states this idea more eloquently. The person you are responding to doesn't feel any personal responsibility for protecting a law based government, and if everyone feels that way, whoever has the most power gets their way, because who is going to stop them, who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
The aggrieved parties are welcome to sue. But it won't get on the docket for over a year at least. but will there be any DoJ lawyers around to care then? Or support staff? Will anyone care? It's looking grim.
The declaration of independence[1] was America's founding document, it laid down why the British colonizing the American continent felt they had a right to overthrow their government and secede. It was likely also written to create a mandate[2]/consent for the new ruling government. The document is extremely relevant to Americans right now who have forgotten its contents and what it cost.
It is somewhat of a culmination of the Age of Enlightenment[3], which is period where philosophical thinkers largely tried to make the "golden rule"[4] rigorous. John Locke[5] was a philosopher who wrote about the idea of a "social contract"[6] which is the absolute core of liberalism and "western"[7] ideals. The social contract is a philosophical idea, but the declaration of independence was a real world implementation of it. I think the french have their own.
A well armed militia is somewhat connected to this idea in that the 2nd amendment en-codifies the right to be able to withdrawal consent to be governed[8] when a government stops protecting rights. In many ways it is a canary in the coal mine for despotism. Technology however has advanced to a point where guns don't matter too much because a despotic government can prevent "free association"[9] with the use of a massive surveillance state that can detect "militias" growing before they are able to gather enough power to withdrawal consent.
Conservatism/Liberalism is a little confused in America. Liberals abandoned some of the core tenets of liberty, such as the 2nd amendment, solidarity, and making sure that those who violate the social contract experience consequences -- crime can't go unpunished and unjustices can't be allowed to fester. Liberals don't want to pay the maintenance cost of maintaining rule of law[10] because speaking truth to power[11] or meaningfully challenging those in power is dangerous. "Freedom isn't free" is a liberal idea born out of liberal philosophy despite conservatives saying it. "If none of us will die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny" is something some Americans grew up hearing from their fathers. Conservatives say a lot of liberal things, but don't understand where they come from or why they say them, creating a kind of "cargo cult"[12] Americanism where they perform American rituals without understanding the substance of those rituals. Conservatives largely aim to "conserve" christian culture, but the vast majority of Christians have almost completely abandoned the teachings of Jesus. Most of them will say things that are correct at face value, but they frequently aren't well educated enough to understand what they say, leaving them vulnerable to abuse.
I went through and gave Wikipedia links to many of the ideas presented because many of those ideas are much larger than the words themselves can convey.
> I went through and gave Wikipedia links to many of the ideas presented because many of those ideas are much larger than the words themselves can convey.
& You did well. Thank you for comment. Forgetfulness is not a luxury we Americans can afford at this juncture.
> If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society
No, this is mob rule.
> who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
This is a bad case for making this claim. While at record lows, the sympathy gap for Israel over Palestine among American voters remains in the double digits [1].
The argument you’re looking for is the judiciary’s role in protecting minority rights [2]. In overruling popular will.
I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible.
Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army.
You should answer a few questions:
(1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights?
(2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society?
(3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law?
(4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?
You’re going off piste. I’m objecting to the claim that citizens are the final arbiters of the law. That is not a view that was held by the founders because they were studied in the history of direct democracies, the early forms of which didn’t distinguish between the citizens qua legislators and citizens qua courts.
> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
That is literally in our founding document and literally citizens being the final arbiters of law.
> That is literally in our founding document and literally citizens being the final arbiters of law
That’s an uncommon reading of that line. Citizens can throw off the government. That doesn’t make them the final arbiters of the law. (Not even legal system. One point of that sentence is you don’t get to choose which parts you throw off.)
This is a whole lot of pedantry to avoid questioning your own beliefs, which isn't surprising, because once you accept the cold hard reality that justice comes from the bottom up, not the top down, it means you have a personal responsibility to do so something if you want justice, and that's a hard reality to accept, so it's easier to live in comfortable denial.
> once you accept the cold hard reality that justice comes from the bottom up, not the top down
Justice, morals and—in my opinion—rights, yes. Even the right of the law to rule, yes. But the arbitration of the law? The particulars of its execution. No.
If the system of law is corrupted, you have to throw out the whole government. That’s why the attacks on our judiciary are so frightening. It’s really difficult to unfuck the rule of law.
What the difference? Legal vs. Illegal only matters if it is enforced. If it isn't being enforced, then there is no meaningful distinction between legal and illegal.
You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now.
If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people, than the people need to abandon rule of law laws to resist their government. If we keep pretending that the rules matter to us while the government doesn't even pretend that the rules matter to them, we will be destroyed.
> You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now.
We should be screaming from the rooftops that it does (or else).
While you are busy defending the status quo, people in positions of enforcement are being replaced by people who are more loyal to a man than to the law.
Once the enforcers are loyalists, it hardly matters how the courts rule.
That assumes that people exist within a shared reality influenced by facts, but people aren't connected to reality and aren't influenced by facts. We can see that with vaccinations.
The system that divorces people from reality is social media, so as long as social media is pumping un-reality into people's lives, I think you're being rather optimistic. What's happening right now is directly empowering social media oligarchs, so they have absolutely no reason to stop. The foundation of their power is un-reality.
This is what I was trying to say but wasn't sure how to say it. You can't deprogram people while they are drinking from the firehose and they have no incentive to disconnect. You would like family and friends, children cutting ties would be thing to force people to reevaluate but they just keep going as normal.
One thing to remember is that the right-wing media has been pushing absurd shibboleths for decades as well as normalizing treating other people horribly on slanderous grounds. That makes it really hard for people to come back because they have an all-you-can-eat buffet of crow. Repairing family relationships or friendships is never easy, and might not be possible after calling someone a “groomer”, “baby killer”, or “terrorist” and in so many cases it’s going to be incredibly uncomfortable to admit having done things like vote for Trump because of an urban legend or Facebook meme you could easily have checked.
It’s much easier to stay inside your bubble, where everyone else will agree with you that your kids and former friends just hate America, and avoid dwelling on it too much. If you’ve ever known someone who was in an extreme religion or abusive relationship, it’s pretty similar and the most reliable way to break the spell is some kind of outside shock which can’t be ignored. Trump might get that with the recession he’s working on but it’ll take time for people to accept that it’s real and was totally avoidable.
I just want to say that if you (the person reading) are one of those people and want to come back , we'll still be here and we'll welcome you. You don't have to agree with us on everything (nobody ever has.) We just have to agree on a few basic principles like the value of the rule of law, the Constitution, and the fact that the people currently in charge do not respect those things.
> It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.
How is it so obvious? What is an example where they broke a law and they continued to do so after courts ruled otherwise?
There have been a number of cases that were judicially reversed both in Trump 1.0 and 2.0. They may have non-traditional interpretations of the law, but to say they don't care about laws at all is filed under TDS. Obviously they do as it dictates the boundaries and therefore their tactics.
Not to pick a fight with you. It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.