At most times and places in history, state authorities have had pretty wide discretion to help or hurt folks. People knew to submit to authorities, and to accept occasional arbitrary applications of authority power. Thankfully, such applications were limited by the fact that authorities were distracted trying to keep their power via keeping the peace, meeting revenue targets, etc.,
Today folks proudly bask in a glow of higher status by believing that they have more control over their government. They believe democracy puts them in charge, and that a “rule of law” drastically discourages arbitrary applications of authority power. They are deluded:
Everything (before the delusion bit) in that paragraph is completely true for the majority of Americans. The applications of power you mention are no more arbitrary applications of authority power were the actions that transformed us from the society/government we were in colonial days to the one we are today even though we didn't get from the original meaning of the constitution to where we are today via a rigorous formal process of crossing parlimentary t's and dotting constitutional i's.
Ultimately it's pretty silly to think of constitutional rights as being what protects us from arbitrary applications of power. I mean the men with the guns could always theoretically (as they did under Jackson) simply say "fuck that" to the established legal norms and demand you do what they wanted anyway. In the end analysis legal and constitutional rights are simply one way of ensuring a continuing cultural consensus on acceptable and unacceptable official behavior. When the meaning of the constitution evolves (as empirically it does) it doesn't require enter some period of legal chaos because the real bulwark against arbitrary application of authority, the cultural/traditional norms, are always present even while undergoing change officials don't think they can get away with blatant deviations from this norm and thus don't.
I'm VERY unhappy about it but drug law seizures are unfortunately not in violation of our cultural norms about official behavior. The reason such seizures continue despite the overwhelmingly clear constitutional case against them is preciscely the fact that the people (or at least those middle class and above) tacitly approve or at least don't violently object to such programs.
Indeed, I would say a correct description of the situation is that there is an unwritten societal understanding that says these forfeiture laws shall only be used against certain classes of people. Officials don't get in trouble for violating the letter of the law or constitution but for violating these social norms and in this case the norm says you don't fuck with middle class 'respectable' white people whose kids get caught in the car with weed the way you do with poor blacks and that's the protection people have.
The legal system is also increasingly biased against men as more laws are passed to protect women and children at the expense of negating equal protection and due process. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the treatment of those falsely accused of sex crimes. The False Rape Society discusses these issues in detail. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ The readers and critical thinkers of overcomingbias.com (especially the men) would do well by becoming more informed of this emerging issue in our culture. False rape claims such as those at Duke University and Hofstra in the past 3-4 years are only the tip of the iceberg and it is important for all men in the United States (as well as most of the anglosphere) to understand how changes in the law affect them and their families. Read the primer here: .
Indeed. "Disorderly conduct", "disturbing the peace", "mischief"... even if these had well-crafted legal boundaries in the common law (maybe they do), the average person kind of lumps them under "Being An Asshole".
In the forfeiture cases mentioned in this post, the police agencies are well aware that public outrage will be manageable only so long as "obvious scumbags" are the ones being looted. On the flip side: I've spoken with members of prominent companies and law firms who indicated that they "abuse" certain tax loopholes to a more limited extent than technically available, because they don't want to raise the attention of the public/ legislators who could close the loophole.
As long as we don’t hear about stuff being arbitrarily taken from someone we know, we can keep believing we are better than those ancients – we still live under a rule of law for those who really matter – people like us.
So people only care that the rule of law applies to them, whether or not it applies to a bunch of other people? They just say that they care about whether it applies to other people?
My friends and I were having a discussion on pretty much the same topic last night, and my one friend told us about how he'd been arrested for jaywalking as a teenager by a cop who openly admitted that they were doing so to meet quotas.
But then again, I live in Calgary and we have one of the worst police departments in Canada.
Evaluating laws without considering the punishment side is not all that helpful.
Loitering, I believe, only/mostly applies to semi-private property (where it would be difficult to enforce trespassing).
J-Walking is a great example of a law that tries to save people from themselves; and make it clear that if you are hit by a car while J-Walking that you probably have little to no legal recourse.
I don't think (most) anyone truly wants to live utterly free since that would mean that everyone around you is free to do as they wish as well. The basic freedom we have is not so much of the physical nature but of a verbal nature - the freedom to speak up and not but prosecuted by the government for doing so. Practical considerations require that we regulate how individuals use our collective space.
It is easy to say those who feel that Democracy gives them full control and zero abuse are deluded - they are. But it is delusional to assert such absolutism is held by others. If you instead posit that we humans realize that ANY political/social system is run by individuals and that to a large extent the daily actions of those individuals is not controllable; then is it delusional to believe that the status-quo is acceptable what change requires that some "cost" is paid by those wishing for change to occur?
You can point out all the human-driven abuses you'd like but our system of government has provided means by which such abuse can be countered - means which include lawsuits and elections. Of course, individuals are always allowed to die for a change they desire greatly enough but lawsuits and elections ask them to risk much less than their life.
I'll give you that those means are not always used by those wronged but the system does provide them for the people to use. Just the fact that you CAN sue the government without risk of death is an improvement over many past and current political systems. And yes, a lawsuit does have a cost associated with it but the judicial branch cannot rule on laws directly but much interpret them in light of cases presented. But failing in a lawsuit does not usually cause one to die and success affects meaningful change without the downside of having to defending oneself for killing in the name of ones cause.
The just completed Tillman case is a good example. The killer felt so strongly about his beliefs that he was willing to die so that unborn children could live. Those who would support his beliefs actually felt his actions hurt the cause as opposed to helping it. A court decision finding Tillman guilty would have the same immediate effect as the gunshot but the cause would not be tainted in the process and the solution would be more permanent.
A diverse society cannot always agree and will always have corruption and abuse; so those who would "overlook" such abuse are simply accepting whatever level they deem as unavoidable given the cost they are willing to put up. Furthermore, such leniency is not only the msot practical way to run such a large society but the masses on the whole benefit from giving those in power discretion to act on their behalf and not require the court system to become involved in every single "situation".
Unless I am misunderstanding, this means that on the streets of Manhattan, the heart of the Land of the Free, you can be arrested for standing still.As a resident of Manhattan, I assure you, we are only angry that this is not enforced.
h g wells wrote, in "the time machine", of a future world where the surface living people, the eloi, were farmed by the subsurface moorlocks.
his vision is very clearly being played out in many countries and especially the US "democracy", where we see the working and middle classes consumed by a cannibalistic oligarchy.
obama said in his state of the nation speech something about dishonesty hating daylight. yet he has done nothing to open institutional doors and let in the light.
Robin, I believe you are completely correct and I applaud you for speaking out about this issue. Also, would you like to comment on the related issue of Government seizures of property based on eminent domain?
I have practiced law for more than twenty years and have seen how weakly our legal system adheres to the rule of law and protection if individual rights.
It seems that many elements on both the left and the right are happy to see our liberty chipped away.
Even after I got out of law school I would react to many of these outrages with a response of "surely that violates due process and surely it won't stand up in court". But these outrages are tolerated by the courts.
Clearly such news has not sparked an irate revolution of concerned citizens demanding the return of their supposed rule of law.
When I saw the magnitude of the wealth transfer of the bail outs, I thought people would be out with "pitchforks and torches" going after any member of the government they could get their hands on. But it didn't happen. People just "took it".
People today ironically equate the phrase "the rule of law" with what was once called "the rule of man". I.e., they accept being ruled.
Do you really expect people who fully accept (men as) rulers to "tell" said rulers "no" in any meaningful way (except for what amounts to wining or begging).
:-)
Today folks proudly bask in a glow of higher status by believing that they have more control over their government. They believe democracy puts them in charge, and that a “rule of law” drastically discourages arbitrary applications of authority power. They are deluded:
Everything (before the delusion bit) in that paragraph is completely true for the majority of Americans. The applications of power you mention are no more arbitrary applications of authority power were the actions that transformed us from the society/government we were in colonial days to the one we are today even though we didn't get from the original meaning of the constitution to where we are today via a rigorous formal process of crossing parlimentary t's and dotting constitutional i's.
Ultimately it's pretty silly to think of constitutional rights as being what protects us from arbitrary applications of power. I mean the men with the guns could always theoretically (as they did under Jackson) simply say "fuck that" to the established legal norms and demand you do what they wanted anyway. In the end analysis legal and constitutional rights are simply one way of ensuring a continuing cultural consensus on acceptable and unacceptable official behavior. When the meaning of the constitution evolves (as empirically it does) it doesn't require enter some period of legal chaos because the real bulwark against arbitrary application of authority, the cultural/traditional norms, are always present even while undergoing change officials don't think they can get away with blatant deviations from this norm and thus don't.
I'm VERY unhappy about it but drug law seizures are unfortunately not in violation of our cultural norms about official behavior. The reason such seizures continue despite the overwhelmingly clear constitutional case against them is preciscely the fact that the people (or at least those middle class and above) tacitly approve or at least don't violently object to such programs.
Indeed, I would say a correct description of the situation is that there is an unwritten societal understanding that says these forfeiture laws shall only be used against certain classes of people. Officials don't get in trouble for violating the letter of the law or constitution but for violating these social norms and in this case the norm says you don't fuck with middle class 'respectable' white people whose kids get caught in the car with weed the way you do with poor blacks and that's the protection people have.
The legal system is also increasingly biased against men as more laws are passed to protect women and children at the expense of negating equal protection and due process. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the treatment of those falsely accused of sex crimes. The False Rape Society discusses these issues in detail. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ The readers and critical thinkers of overcomingbias.com (especially the men) would do well by becoming more informed of this emerging issue in our culture. False rape claims such as those at Duke University and Hofstra in the past 3-4 years are only the tip of the iceberg and it is important for all men in the United States (as well as most of the anglosphere) to understand how changes in the law affect them and their families. Read the primer here: .
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots"
You can use this thought on an organtizational level or government level.Have a good day all.
Indeed. "Disorderly conduct", "disturbing the peace", "mischief"... even if these had well-crafted legal boundaries in the common law (maybe they do), the average person kind of lumps them under "Being An Asshole".
In the forfeiture cases mentioned in this post, the police agencies are well aware that public outrage will be manageable only so long as "obvious scumbags" are the ones being looted. On the flip side: I've spoken with members of prominent companies and law firms who indicated that they "abuse" certain tax loopholes to a more limited extent than technically available, because they don't want to raise the attention of the public/ legislators who could close the loophole.
As long as we don’t hear about stuff being arbitrarily taken from someone we know, we can keep believing we are better than those ancients – we still live under a rule of law for those who really matter – people like us.
So people only care that the rule of law applies to them, whether or not it applies to a bunch of other people? They just say that they care about whether it applies to other people?
What a surprise.
Check out my blog, the "Anti-Democracy Agenda":
www.anti-democracy.com
and my book, "Anti-Democratic Thought" (Imprint Academic, 2008):
http://books.google.com/boo...
Cheers
My friends and I were having a discussion on pretty much the same topic last night, and my one friend told us about how he'd been arrested for jaywalking as a teenager by a cop who openly admitted that they were doing so to meet quotas.
But then again, I live in Calgary and we have one of the worst police departments in Canada.
Evaluating laws without considering the punishment side is not all that helpful.
Loitering, I believe, only/mostly applies to semi-private property (where it would be difficult to enforce trespassing).
J-Walking is a great example of a law that tries to save people from themselves; and make it clear that if you are hit by a car while J-Walking that you probably have little to no legal recourse.
I don't think (most) anyone truly wants to live utterly free since that would mean that everyone around you is free to do as they wish as well. The basic freedom we have is not so much of the physical nature but of a verbal nature - the freedom to speak up and not but prosecuted by the government for doing so. Practical considerations require that we regulate how individuals use our collective space.
It is easy to say those who feel that Democracy gives them full control and zero abuse are deluded - they are. But it is delusional to assert such absolutism is held by others. If you instead posit that we humans realize that ANY political/social system is run by individuals and that to a large extent the daily actions of those individuals is not controllable; then is it delusional to believe that the status-quo is acceptable what change requires that some "cost" is paid by those wishing for change to occur?
You can point out all the human-driven abuses you'd like but our system of government has provided means by which such abuse can be countered - means which include lawsuits and elections. Of course, individuals are always allowed to die for a change they desire greatly enough but lawsuits and elections ask them to risk much less than their life.
I'll give you that those means are not always used by those wronged but the system does provide them for the people to use. Just the fact that you CAN sue the government without risk of death is an improvement over many past and current political systems. And yes, a lawsuit does have a cost associated with it but the judicial branch cannot rule on laws directly but much interpret them in light of cases presented. But failing in a lawsuit does not usually cause one to die and success affects meaningful change without the downside of having to defending oneself for killing in the name of ones cause.
The just completed Tillman case is a good example. The killer felt so strongly about his beliefs that he was willing to die so that unborn children could live. Those who would support his beliefs actually felt his actions hurt the cause as opposed to helping it. A court decision finding Tillman guilty would have the same immediate effect as the gunshot but the cause would not be tainted in the process and the solution would be more permanent.
A diverse society cannot always agree and will always have corruption and abuse; so those who would "overlook" such abuse are simply accepting whatever level they deem as unavoidable given the cost they are willing to put up. Furthermore, such leniency is not only the msot practical way to run such a large society but the masses on the whole benefit from giving those in power discretion to act on their behalf and not require the court system to become involved in every single "situation".
Realism trumping idealism and delusion.
Unless I am misunderstanding, this means that on the streets of Manhattan, the heart of the Land of the Free, you can be arrested for standing still.As a resident of Manhattan, I assure you, we are only angry that this is not enforced.
h g wells wrote, in "the time machine", of a future world where the surface living people, the eloi, were farmed by the subsurface moorlocks.
his vision is very clearly being played out in many countries and especially the US "democracy", where we see the working and middle classes consumed by a cannibalistic oligarchy.
obama said in his state of the nation speech something about dishonesty hating daylight. yet he has done nothing to open institutional doors and let in the light.
is barrack a moorlock pretending to be an eloi?
But what should I do about it?
Robin, I believe you are completely correct and I applaud you for speaking out about this issue. Also, would you like to comment on the related issue of Government seizures of property based on eminent domain?
I have practiced law for more than twenty years and have seen how weakly our legal system adheres to the rule of law and protection if individual rights.
It seems that many elements on both the left and the right are happy to see our liberty chipped away.
Even after I got out of law school I would react to many of these outrages with a response of "surely that violates due process and surely it won't stand up in court". But these outrages are tolerated by the courts.
Regarding...
Clearly such news has not sparked an irate revolution of concerned citizens demanding the return of their supposed rule of law.
When I saw the magnitude of the wealth transfer of the bail outs, I thought people would be out with "pitchforks and torches" going after any member of the government they could get their hands on. But it didn't happen. People just "took it".
People today ironically equate the phrase "the rule of law" with what was once called "the rule of man". I.e., they accept being ruled.
Do you really expect people who fully accept (men as) rulers to "tell" said rulers "no" in any meaningful way (except for what amounts to wining or begging).