The UCC makes our Constitution irrelevant?

[MikeC]

What is it you are confusing yourself with now? Are you arguing that if you want to rob, rape, and murder, people should allow you to do that? That their trying to defend themselves from you constitutes an infringement on your right to behave that way?

Yet again you put words into my mouth that I did not say and refuse to answer the question - who are you to say what is right and wrong in your proposed system of non-government?

Here's one that does not involve violence, since that seems to be a problem for you - the universal declaration of human rights -

ARTICLE 1:

(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.


(b) All human beings are Allah's subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most beneficial to His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.

Content from external source

- Cairo declaration of Human rights

What gives you the right to say that is or is not "true"?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Yet again you put words into my mouth that I did not say and refuse to answer the question - who are you to say what is right and wrong in your proposed system of non-government?

Here's one that does not involve violence, since that seems to be a problem for you - the universal declaration of human rights -

ARTICLE 1:

(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.


(b) All human beings are Allah's subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most beneficial to His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.

Content from external source

- Cairo declaration of Human rights

What gives you the right to say that is or is not "true"?

My right to speak my mind?

 

[MikeC]

So your right to speak your mind is sufficient to tell other people what is right or wrong, and their right to speak their mind is not sufficient for them to decide for themselves???

I thought everyone was allowed to make up their own mind about right and wrong according to their own dictates - isn't that your central idea?

 

[Juror No. 8]

So your right to speak your mind is sufficient to tell other people what is right or wrong, and their right to speak their mind is not sufficient for them to decide for themselves???

I thought everyone was allowed to make up their own mind about right and wrong according to their own dictates - isn't that your central idea?

What are you talking about? People can try to determine for themselves what is right and wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll make the right or correct determination.

A group of bank robbers might determine that it's right for them to go around robbing banks. That doesn't mean they will be allowed to get away with it.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Apparently, nobody here is capable of making even the slightest attempt to support with any moral or logical consistency the concept of government.

 

[MikeC]

What are you talking about? People can try to determine for themselves what is right and wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll make the right or correct determination.

Who says what is "the right or correct determination"?

A group of bank robbers might determine that it's right for them to go around robbing banks.

Indeed - you are beginning to think critically now...

That doesn't mean they will be allowed to get away with it.

Allowed by who? The victims? What if there are no victims left alive? A posse of other people from round about or neighbouring communities? Again maybe - what gives them the right to kill or otherwise the bank robbers?

Back to my original question - what makes the decision of one person or group more "right" than a decision by another person or group?

If both are sovereign then why are both not equally right (or wrong)?

Apparently, nobody here is capable of making even the slightest attempt to support with any moral or logical consistency the concept of government.

In my case I think you have clearly made up your mind & nothing I say is going to shift you & IMO you're just looking for an argument so I'm not going to bother.

But that's just me.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Who says what is "the right or correct determination"?

Reality and natural law does.

I could go in the woods and harass a mother bear and her cubs, but the outcome probably won't turn out so well for me.

Indeed - you are beginning to think critically now...

At least one of us is.

Allowed by who? The victims? What if there are no victims left alive?

What are you saying? That the bank robbers will not only rob and kill all their victims, but the families of the victims too, along with everyone else who has an interest in putting a stop to the robberies and the killings?

Yeah, that's likely to happen. All you are doing is repeatedly asking "what if?" over and over instead of actually making a rational argument.

A posse of other people from round about or neighbouring communities? Again maybe - what gives them the right to kill or otherwise the bank robbers?

People have the right to defend themselves from those who don't respect the lives and property of others. That's just natural law.

Back to my original question - what makes the decision of one person or group more "right" than a decision by another person or group?

If both are sovereign then why are both not equally right (or wrong)?

Because morality isn't subjective.

In my case I think you have clearly made up your mind & nothing I say is going to shift you & IMO you're just looking for an argument so I'm not going to bother.

But that's just me.

Again, you're not making any sort of argument. You're either just machine gunning me with pointless questions or asking "what if?" over and over again.

 

[MikeC]

Why wouldn't these putative "criminals" destroy an entire society in order to prevent any comeback?? There are certainly people in the world now capable of such acts, and the concept is common enough in fiction through the ages...although it is true usually 1 child gets away....

What is "natural law"?? The law of the jungle? Might makes right?

And asking this is not a pointless question - the question of how disputes are solved has to be intrinsic to any sort of society - it occurs for all forms of life including plants.

Because morality isn't subjective.

The existence of morality might not be subjective, but what constitutes morality certainly is. What is moral for a communist is different for what is moral for an anarchist which is different from what is moral for a fundamentalist Moslem and a fundamentalist jew and a survivalist and a Jehovah Witness and a Roman Catholic and an Animist and a Southern Baptist and an agnostic.

Sure they might agree that "murder" is wrong - but what is murder might be quite different for some of them - there's plenty of historical evidence of religious fundamentalists thinking that killing people of other religions or atheists or pagans is not murder, various people thinking that killing communists is not murder, etc. The concept of some people being "less than human" is a well established behaviour!

My argument, since you seem unable to grasp it, is that your so-called lack of government will, in reality, be nothing of the sort.

The first thing that would happen without your current formal government is that groups of like minded people would band together and agree to be governed by a set of rules that suits them. And they would agree to collectively enforce those rules using some form of coercion and force - ie they would govern themselves - ergo they would have government.

And weaker groups would find themselves threatened by stronger groups if there was conflict - they might give up and become absorbed, or band together as confederations of some sort to resist the stronger ones - but again you get agreed rules of behaviour, you get requirements to contribute to the collective effort, whatever that may be.

This is reality - this is how human society has always been, and short of some spectacular evolution of our species it is going to stay that way for a long time.

 

[Juror No. 8]

My argument, since you seem unable to grasp it, is that your so-called lack of government will, in reality, be nothing of the sort.

The first thing that would happen without your current formal government is that groups of like minded people would band together and agree to be governed by a set of rules that suits them. And they would agree to collectively enforce those rules using some form of coercion and force - ie they would govern themselves - ergo they would have government.

And weaker groups would find themselves threatened by stronger groups if there was conflict - they might give up and become absorbed, or band together as confederations of some sort to resist the stronger ones - but again you get agreed rules of behaviour, you get requirements to contribute to the collective effort, whatever that may be.

This is reality - this is how human society has always been, and short of some spectacular evolution of our species it is going to stay that way for a long time.

Sorry, but the fact that some people will always try to centralize power due to their own psychopathy or the psychopathy of others isn't a proper or moral justification for government. This is akin to arguing that since there will always be crime, we might as well just accept crime and make it the foundation of our society.

 

[Mick West]

J8, is there a name for the type of society you are espousing? Sound most like Anarchism. Is that how you would describe it?

There's an article on Stateless Societies, and the history of their decline, that you might find interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society

Anthropologists have found that social stratification is not the standard among all societies. John Gowdy writes, "Assumptions about human behaviour that members of market societies believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that social stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer peoples."[10]​The economies of stateless agricultural societies tend to focus and organize subsistence agriculture at the community level, and tend to diversify their production rather than specializing in a particular crop.[11]​
In many stateless societies, conflicts between families are resolved by appealing to the community. Each of the sides of the dispute will voice their concerns, and the community, often voicing its will through village elders will reach a judgment on the situation. Even when there is no legal or coercive authority to enforce these community decisions, people tend to adhere to them, due to a desire to be held in esteem by the community.[12][​

Content from external source

 

[Juror No. 8]

I consider myself an agorist, which is a form of anarchism.

I'll read the link when I get a chance.

 

[Mick West]

That's interesting. How did you come to that? Did you read Alongside Night and/or the New Libertarian Manifesto?

Do you participate in the the suggested revolutionary processes? Like not paying taxes, and engaging in the black market?

 

[Mick West]

I've been reading about Agorism. Interesting idea. It's suggested that instead of property rights, courts, and police, people buy insurance for everything they value, and if someone steals it, the insurance company will replace it, and go after the thief for compensation. If the thief also has insurance, then the two insurance companies either go to war, with hired enforcement companies, or they agree to binding arbitration (bound not by law, obviously, but by desire to sell more insurance).

That's all the suggestion for how Agorism will handle the fundamental problem of lack of statism.

Most damaging of all to this perfectly free society is its lack of a mechanism of correction. All it takes is a handful of practitioners of coercion who enjoy their ill-gotten plunder in enough company to sustain them - and freedom is dead. Even if all are living free, one "bite of the apple," one throwback, reading old history or rediscovering evil on his own, will "unfree" the perfect society.

 

[JFDee]

There will always be crime. Therefore we will always need law enforcement (government).

 

[Mick West]

There will always be crime. Therefore we will always need law enforcement (government).

Why would you need law enforcement if you have insurance?

The system of agorism does not seem very well thought out. I'm not normally one to criticize something for spelling errors, but you'd think a manifesto that has been around for 30 years would have had the kinks ironed out by now.

Very cheaply and profitably, IA and IB can simply pay and arbitration company to
settle the dispute, presenting their respective claims and evidence. If B has rightful
claim, IA drops the case, taking its small lose (compared to war!) and has excellent
incentive to improve its investigation. If A has rightful claim, the reverse is now true
for IB.

Content from external source

It all seems very much based on faith that a pure market solution is inherently peaceful and stable. There's very little evidence for this besides wishful thinking.

 

[Juror No. 8]

That's interesting. How did you come to that? Did you read Alongside Night and/or the New Libertarian Manifesto?

Do you participate in the the suggested revolutionary processes? Like not paying taxes, and engaging in the black market?

No. It's just the closest form of anarchism that describes my beliefs (non-aggression principle, voluntaryism, free market, etc...).

 

[MikeC]

Why would you need law enforcement if you have insurance?

I think insurance still has to be paid for - insurance customers who are not experiencing crime will want their premiums to be as low as possible, so there will still be incentive to reduce crime in various ways.

I'm just reading "Intelligence-led policing" by Jerry Ratcliffe, and have also just finished "The Regulatory Craft" by Malcom Sparrow. Both are concerned with how government organisations make decisions on where and how to allocate resources and the pressures and difficulties of actually accomplishing what seems "perfect" in the real world. The former specifically police obviously, the later in a wider government context but including many law enforcement cases and models.

Whether you try to prevent, reduce or disrupt crime it will require organisation and resources.

 

[Juror No. 8]

There will always be crime. Therefore we will always need law enforcement (government).

This is false. People can always enforce natural law without forming any sort of organized government.

A private security firm can do many of the same things a police department does.

 

[Juror No. 8]

The system of agorism does not seem very well thought out.

I find it much better thought out and far more appealing than the system we currently live under and the system you spend a lot of time defending.

It all seems very much based on faith that a pure market solution is inherently peaceful and stable. There's very little evidence for this besides wishful thinking.

The same goes for your pro-state beliefs. How could a system based on and dependent on aggressive violence ever be truly peaceful and stable?

 

[Juror No. 8]

The State represents a society where political power has been centralized under a governmental monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force. Why is this preferable to any other form of society? Why is it preferable to have power centralized into fewer hands rather than decentralized into many hands? Why should anyone have at their disposal a monopoly on the use of aggressive force?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs&list=UUFeK8ZdHbCqAq3gekWs8aEQ&index=15&feature=plcp

 

[Mick West]

Well, I would not suggest that our current system is anything like ideal. But I don't see argorism as a viable alternative.

Power is NOT centralized. There are multiple levels of government in the US. There are tens of thousands of local governments or one form or another that all make decisions at the local level.

[ex=http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/gc021x1.pdf]There were 87,576 governmental units in the United States as of June 30, 2002. In addition to the federal government and the 50 state governments, there were 87,525 units of local government. Of these, 38,967 are general purpose local governments—3,034 county governments, and 35,933 subcounty general-purpose governments (including 19,429 municipal governments and 16,504 town or township governments). The remainder, more than half the total number, are special-purpose local governments, including 13,506 school district governments and 35,052 special district governments.[/ex]

Where is the evidence that an argoristic society would work? There has been nothing like it since pre-tribal times. Certainly no city has ever operated on an argorist principle. It's simply not plausible that a transition could be made. You are just being idealistic, but entirely impractical.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Power is NOT centralized. There are multiple levels of government in the US. There are tens of thousands of local governments or one form or another that all make decisions at the local level.

Of course power is centralized. Less than a thousand people in this country can dictate to the other 300 million how they are going to live, under what statutes and regulations, what taxes they will pay, and which wars they will fight and die in. Less than 1% percent of the population controls the other 99%.

How could you possibly claim power isn't centralized?

Where is the evidence that an argoristic society would work?

Where is the evidence that an agorist society wouldn't "work"?

What constitutes what works and what doesn't work? How do you determine this?

There has been nothing like it since pre-tribal times. Certainly no city has ever operated on an argorist principle. It's simply not plausible that a transition could be made. You are just being idealistic, but entirely impractical.

If being practical means accepting as normal a society based on and dependent on naked violence and aggression, then I don't ever want to be practical.

 

[MikeC]

This is false. People can always enforce natural law without forming any sort of organized government.

A private security firm can do many of the same things a police department does.

And how do they do that?

By organising, by agreeing to work under some rules, by agreeing to be employed by some individual or group.

In short, by collectively agreeing a set of conditions to live and/or work by, and by having a hierarchy of accountability and responsibility (workers to employers, employers to whoever they are contracted to)

For some reason you think this is not government.

Here's the various definitions of government from Dic.com:

gov·ern·ment
   [guhv-ern-muhnt, ‐er-muhnt] Show IPA

noun
1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.

3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.

4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.

5. (in some parliamentary systems, as that of the United Kingdom)
a. the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time: The Prime Minister has formed a new government.

b. the parliament along with the cabinet: The government has fallen.

Content from external source

I think your objection is really to your CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT and not actually government per se.

 

[Juror No. 8]

And how do they do that?

By organising, by agreeing to work under some rules, by agreeing to be employed by some individual or group.

In short, by collectively agreeing a set of conditions to live and/or work by, and by having a hierarchy of accountability and responsibility (workers to employers, employers to whoever they are contracted to)

For some reason you think this is not government.

If you're walking down the street and someone approaches you and tries to rob you, do you need to form a government to stop them? Do you need someone's permission to defend yourself? Do you need to form a committee of like-minded individuals to reach some kind of consensus about what to do when faced with someone trying to rob you? Do you need to collect taxes?

Of course not. You're just confusing one thing for another. You've been conditioned to believe that you can't function individually, that you are incapable of self-rule and must be ruled by others.

I think your objection is really to your CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT and not actually government per se.

No, it's to all government. Our current form of government is just the end result of the natural progression of all government. This is what happens when power is centralized instead of decentralized.

 

[Mick West]

If you're walking down the street and someone approaches you and tries to rob you, do you need to form a government to stop them? Do you need someone's permission to defend yourself? Do you need to form a committee of like-minded individuals to reach some kind of consensus about what to do when faced with someone trying to rob you? Do you need to collect taxes?

Suppose it were not just one person attacking you, but twenty, and they are in a group with a leader. Does that then not change things somewhat? What is the mechanism for corrective action? Remember:

Most damaging of all to this perfectly free society is its lack of a mechanism of correction. All it takes is a handful of practitioners of coercion who enjoy their ill-gotten plunder in enough company to sustain them - and freedom is dead. Even if all are living free, one "bite of the apple," one throwback, reading old history or rediscovering evil on his own, will "unfree" the perfect society.

Content from external source

 

[Juror No. 8]

Suppose it were not just one person attacking you, but twenty, and they are in a group with a leader. Does that then not change things somewhat? What is the mechanism for corrective action?

Government doesn't solve or correct that problem either, though. After all, this country is full of criminal gangs. There's probably one or more competing criminal gangs in every city. They rape, rob, pillage, and murder, too. Most of them have leaders. Many of these gangs go back several generations. Has the government - your preferred "mechanism for corrective action" - had any real success in eradicating these gangs or preventing them from menacing the population? Of course not.

 

[Mick West]

I think they are doing pretty well. There are very few (if any) no-go areas in the country, and the power of organized crime is greatly diminished over what it was 50 years ago. Crime itself is greatly reduced.

As it is, the rule of law generally wins over the rule of thuggery. You may not see the diference, but most people do.

 

[MikeC]

Government doesn't solve or correct that problem either, though. After all, this country is full of criminal gangs. There's probably one or more competing criminal gangs in every city. They rape, rob, pillage, and murder, too. Most of them have leaders. Many of these gangs go back several generations. Has the government - your preferred "mechanism for corrective action" - had any real success in eradicating these gangs or preventing them from menacing the population? Of course not.

As Mick said - yes it has.

And your post is not actually a response to the question at all - it looks like an attempt to avoid discussing what was actually asked - which you have commonly done in this thread.

So what is your mechanism for dealing with groups or even individuals that/who are larger and more powerful than you?

 

[Juror No. 8]

I think they are doing pretty well. There are very few (if any) no-go areas in the country, and the power of organized crime is greatly diminished over what it was 50 years ago. Crime itself is greatly reduced.

As it is, the rule of law generally wins over the rule of thuggery. You may not see the diference, but most people do.

They aren't doing that well. There are dangerous, no-go areas in almost every large city in the country. Some of these areas are like war zones, where even the local police are reluctant to patrol without military-grade weapons and body armor.

As for organized crime, that hasn't disappeared either. Instead, it has branched out into the international arms, drugs, and sex slave smuggling/trades. Even the Russian Mafia operates in the U.S. now. This is to say nothing of all the criminality within our own government (Fast and Furious, Iran-Contra, COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, Project SHAD, Tuskegee Syphilis, etc...).

The rule of law is dead under the current system. What we have is rule by corporatocracy, a fact which you just haven't caught on to yet.

 

[Juror No. 8]

As Mick said - yes it has.

And your post is not actually a response to the question at all - it looks like an attempt to avoid discussing what was actually asked - which you have commonly done in this thread.

So what is your mechanism for dealing with groups or even individuals that/who are larger and more powerful than you?

Individual action, group action, or action via private security firm.

If criminals can band together, so can everybody else.

 

[MikeC]

Of course everyone else can - I have said so already.

And as I understand your position on "natural law", whoever gets together the most powerful group will be "right".

They aren't doing that well. There are dangerous, no-go areas in almost every large city in the country. Some of these areas are like war zones, where even the local police are reluctant to patrol without military-grade weapons and body armor.

there have always been no-go areas. Is there any evidence they are any bigger, smaller, better or worse now than they have ever been?

As for organized crime, that hasn't disappeared either. Instead, it has branched out into the international arms, drugs, and sex slave smuggling/trades. Even the Russian Mafia operates in the U.S. now. This is to say nothing of all the criminality within our own government (Fast and Furious, Iran-Contra, COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, Project SHAD, Tuskegee Syphilis, etc...).

Again this has always been the case too - there has always been illegality by governments, and under "natural law" the only reason the most powerful won't be acting "illegally" is that you would have no law hence nothing would ever be illegal.

The rule of law is dead under the current system.

arrant nonsense - the rule of law is enforced every day across dozens of countries around the world.

but if the rule of law wasn't being enforced then isn't that your desired end point anyway??

What we have is rule by corporatocracy, a fact which you just haven't caught on to yet.

Corporatocracy is not the same as not having rule of law - and the term and it's meaning are quite well known and often applied to the USA! In fact a corporatocracy pretty much REQUIRES a rule of law - albeit law that suits the corporations rather than individuals.

A corporatocracy is a situation in which corporate bodies interact with sovereign power in an unhealthy alignment between business and political power.[1] In a corporatocracy an elite upper-class,[2] maintains ties between business and government,[1][3] sometimes by lobbying efforts[4][5] or funding political advertising campaigns,[6] or providing bailouts when corporations are seen as too big to fail,[7] for the purpose of controlling government[2] and dictating policy to serve its financial interests.[5]

Content from external source

Again it looks to me as if your problem is with the form of your government - not with the idea of having government per se.

 

[SR1419]

The rule of law is dead under the current system. What we have is rule by corporatocracy, a fact which you just haven't caught on to yet.

That is gross mischaracterization that does not hold up to rational scrutiny. The vast majority of laws are obeyed by the vast Majority of citizens.

Your bias inhibits your ability to an honest, rational review of the facts.

 

[Juror No. 8]

And as I understand your position on "natural law", whoever gets together the most powerful group will be "right".

The same thing happens under the government with the State, so I don't see why that should bother you too much. After all, our government is for sale to the highest bidder.

there have always been no-go areas. Is there any evidence they are any bigger, smaller, better or worse now than they have ever been?

I don't know. The point is, government can't solve the problem of gangs any better than anarchy can. At least in anarchy, the people will be able to select from various market solutions, as opposed to the government's monopolistic, inefficient, anti-competitive, one-size-fits-all all solution.

Market competition provides much better products and services than monopolies do.

Again this has always been the case too - there has always been illegality by governments, and under "natural law" the only reason the most powerful won't be acting "illegally" is that you would have no law hence nothing would ever be illegal.

You're confusing law with legality. They are not necessarily the same. For instance, the government can make slavery legal as it once did before under the U.S. Constitution, but it wouldn't be lawful, as it would be a direct violation of natural law and a crime against humanity. It would be legal, yes, but completely illegitimate, and nobody would be under any moral obligation to obey such a law.

And again, law (natural) exists whether or not government exists.

arrant nonsense - the rule of law is enforced every day across dozens of countries around the world.

It's the mere pretense of the rule of law, as both the government and injustice system have been hijacked by corporations and elites.

but if the rule of law wasn't being enforced then isn't that your desired end point anyway??

Sure, in the absence of the government's monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force. That's far from the case.

Corporatocracy

is not the same as not having rule of law - and the term and it's meaning are quite well known and often applied to the USA! In fact a corporatocracy pretty much REQUIRES a rule of law - albeit law that suits the corporations rather than individuals.

You're confused again. That's not rule of law, it's color of law.

Again it looks to me as if your problem is with the form of your government - not with the idea of having government per se.

Wrong. You just don't understand any of the concepts you are discussing. In fact, I think this might be your first ever discussion involving anarchism.

 

[Juror No. 8]

That is gross mischaracterization that does not hold up to rational scrutiny. The vast majority of laws are obeyed by the vast Majority of citizens.

Is that what you think 'rule of law' means? A majority of people obeying a majority of laws?

Good grief.

Your bias inhibits your ability to an honest, rational review of the facts.

I might be biased, but you haven't the faintest idea what the facts even are here.

You're clearly the victim of a bad public education system.

 

[SR1419]

Is that what you think 'rule of law' means? A majority of people obeying a majority of laws?

Good grief.



I might be biased, but you haven't the faintest idea what the facts even are here.

You're clearly the victim of a bad public education system.

You bias blinds you.

You assumptions clearly indicate failure.

I did not define rule of law nor did I have a public education.

Can you, in fact, point to a single case of someone, unambiguously, being above the Law?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Can you, in fact, point to a single case of someone, unambiguously, being above the Law?

Of course. Fast and Furious. Obama and Holder. Our own government involved in illegal arms trafficking that results in murder.

Our government is now set up in such a way that the president, as well as his cronies, can flout the law whenever it is convenient. This is just a short list from Obama's term:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/2011/06/conn-carroll-our-president-thinks-hes-above-law/40273

 

[SR1419]

breaking the law doesn't mean one is above the law...nor does the title of an op-ed.

 

[Juror No. 8]

breaking the law doesn't mean one is above the law...nor does the title of an op-ed.

It does when one is able to so easily get away with it.

But it figures that you'd focus on the title of the op-ed, because you certainly can't argue with the contents. That's typical for pro-state trolls such as yourself.

 

[SR1419]

Nice...resort to attacking when confronted with the reality that your beliefs might be false.

It figures.

That one or more individual breaks the law- regardless of the "ease" with one "gets away with it" does not mean that the fundamental premise of the Rule of Law is dead.

 

[Met Watch]

Okay, so I agree that in these cases, Obama and his colleagues may have stepped over the line. However, saying that they "flout the law whenever it is convenient" is absolutely ridiculous. Prove to me that this administration has done nothing but break the law at every opportunity, keeping in mind the context of the situation that they have faced since January of 2011. Just an opinion of mine, of course. My deepest apologies to the juror if that makes me a pro-state troll.

By the way, if you haven't seen me around, that's because I just joined. Thanks for having this site up, Mick.