undefined | Better HN

0 pointsflubert9y ago0 comments

I think you'll enjoy: The Myth of the Rule of Law...

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

0 comments

chx9y ago

While it's great to harp on the inconsistency of the body of law, the importance of rule of law is how powerful people equally get prosecuted and sentenced and cases are not determined by who can pay a bigger bribe to the judge. Both happen in the negative in, say, Hungary.

filoeleven9y ago

> the importance of rule of law is how powerful people equally get prosecuted and sentenced and cases are not determined by who can pay a bigger bribe to the judge

But the law is not equally applied in the US, though it's more often here a case of being powerful than being rich. See how General Petraeus was treated (for retaining eight notebooks full of "highly sensitive information" and giving them to his biographer/paramour) compared to Stephen Kim (who discussed one classified report about North Korea with a reporter): the former was fined, the latter was jailed.[0]

Now, Kim has since been released due to the outcry over the disparity of the sentences, so in this case the subversion of the rule of law coupled with public pressure ended up working out. But that is not an inspiring system. It did little for instance to help Jeffrey Sterling[1] (charged with espionage, in part for doing something that sounds a lot like what Hillary Clinton did with her emails).

This is to say nothing of things that have gone the other way, such as a complete lack of prosecution for those behind the 2008 financial crisis, retroactive telecom immunity, etc. The message that this sends is, "The rule of law applies to you unless you are close enough or important enough to whoever is in power." Which is not really the rule of law at all.

[0]https://theintercept.com/2015/03/03/petraeus-plea-deal-revea...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Alexander_Sterling#Con...

alasdair_9y ago

Think of essentially any major US-based scandal in the last twenty years involving extremely powerful individuals (presidents, billionaires etc.). I think it is highly likely that in each case, the most powerful people managed to avoid prosecution and sentencing unless the people they harmed were even more powerful than themselves.

More importantly, these powerful people effectively write the laws themselves - why break a law when you can simply cause whatever action you wish to take to become legal?

Torturing prisoners? Crashing the world's financial system? Spying on millions of Americans without any kind of warrant? Lying about the spying to congress? All no problem! Just make up a law and get it passed, or if you forgot to do that, get retroactive immunity granted or just ask the President to pardon you directly.

The only thing that matters is how much power (influence, force, money etc.) you can bring to bear and who your opponents are. Law is irrelevant. To put it in plainer terms: people who own nuclear weapons don't have to pay their parking tickets.

vertex-four9y ago

I've read over that, and while I found the majority of the article interesting, I found the conclusion jarring. Especially as a true Marxist would agree with many of the ideas throughout the article, but come to an entirely different conclusion - that the solution to law being imposed on society isn't to allow people to choose which entity they'll allow to impose on them, but to allow society to directly create its own order.

Of course, just as you might look like the article's Socrates for suggesting free markets of law, you'd look even more like him for suggesting that maybe some issues are best resolved through means other than markets or monopolies.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse