The simple fact is that the "rule of law" is a myth, a fairy tale, a pipe dream. I am not the historian Mike is but I see no evidence that any government has operated under such a rule -EVER! The "rule of law" is fine and dandy as long as it doesn't interfere too badly with whatever it might be that the power elite wishes to do. It is precisely the same at the level of the individual. People only follow the law when it is not excessively inconvenient. When laws interfere with what an individual - or a group - wants to do, then the law is ignored. The difference between the so-called "law abiding" and the "criminal" - be they individuals or governments - is the point at which and the frequency of occasions where existing law becomes excessively inconvenient. Increasing attempts at control by means of rules or laws only lowers the threshold for a stricture becoming excessively inconvenient.
When Jefferson wrote of governments deriving their power (just power to be exact) from the consent of the governed, he was merely stating the obvious . All rulers operate by the consent of the governed - whether willing, tacit or coerced. Call it "divine right of kings" or "mandate of heaven" or "rule by fear" it all only amounts to consent. If sufficient numbers of individuals withdraw their consent any government can fall. It may require different percentages in different situations, but the principle is the same. A sufficiently large force of unarmed, untrained (in martial skills) peasants can over power the most skillful, heavily armed/armored mounted knight. The same principle applies to nation states as to armored knights. This is the critical point the "resistance is futile" crowd fail to understand. Given sufficient numbers and sufficient strength of will, a revolution WILL succeed. It is inevitable. Revolutions fail only when the numbers of rebels or their will to break free is insufficient.
I am totally fed up with ninnies who whine and prattle of the "rule of law". If we wish to convince those who consider themselves out betters to operate within the boundaries of law, we must make it more inconvenient for them to operate outside those boundaries than within. We must apply the "what's in it for me" principle and provide an incentive for our would-be rulers to remain within the law - even if what's in it for them is only the privilege of breathing.
Shakespeare said it well: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." Julius Caesar (Act I, Scene ii, lines 140-141)
Of course Patrick Henry put the choice succinctly while declaring his preference. It is for each to choose for themselves whether they will be free.
4 comments:
And where is Oswald, (the lucky rabbit), when you really need him?
The simple fact is that the "rule of law" is a myth, a fairy tale, a pipe dream. I am not the historian Mike is but I see no evidence that any government has operated under such a rule -EVER! The "rule of law" is fine and dandy as long as it doesn't interfere too badly with whatever it might be that the power elite wishes to do. It is precisely the same at the level of the individual. People only follow the law when it is not excessively inconvenient. When laws interfere with what an individual - or a group - wants to do, then the law is ignored. The difference between the so-called "law abiding" and the "criminal" - be they individuals or governments - is the point at which and the frequency of occasions where existing law becomes excessively inconvenient. Increasing attempts at control by means of rules or laws only lowers the threshold for a stricture becoming excessively inconvenient.
When Jefferson wrote of governments deriving their power (just power to be exact) from the consent of the governed, he was merely stating the obvious . All rulers operate by the consent of the governed - whether willing, tacit or coerced. Call it "divine right of kings" or "mandate of heaven" or "rule by fear" it all only amounts to consent. If sufficient numbers of individuals withdraw their consent any government can fall. It may require different percentages in different situations, but the principle is the same. A sufficiently large force of unarmed, untrained (in martial skills) peasants can over power the most skillful, heavily armed/armored mounted knight. The same principle applies to nation states as to armored knights. This is the critical point the "resistance is futile" crowd fail to understand. Given sufficient numbers and sufficient strength of will, a revolution WILL succeed. It is inevitable. Revolutions fail only when the numbers of rebels or their will to break free is insufficient.
I am totally fed up with ninnies who whine and prattle of the "rule of law". If we wish to convince those who consider themselves out betters to operate within the boundaries of law, we must make it more inconvenient for them to operate outside those boundaries than within. We must apply the "what's in it for me" principle and provide an incentive for our would-be rulers to remain within the law - even if what's in it for them is only the privilege of breathing.
Shakespeare said it well:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Julius Caesar (Act I, Scene ii, lines 140-141)
Of course Patrick Henry put the choice succinctly while declaring his preference. It is for each to choose for themselves whether they will be free.
I, am not a man learned enough to answer...
But I do know....
It IS NOT "Law that Rules America", dare I say, Power and Theater.
IMHO
Clinton Crime Cartel says all that needs to be said..US FED GOV is power, but definitely not backed by the US Constitution.
Sign Me, Neal Jensen
Post a Comment