Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

[necrovore]

The law is not an end in itself. The only valid reason for laws to exist is to protect individual rights. This is why the Declaration of Independence was valid even though it was almost certainly illegal when it was written.

Some people are fond of saying that "no one is above the law," and if the law is just, that's just another way of saying that nobody has the right to sacrifice others to himself.

However, if the law is unjust, the phrase "no one is above the law" is more sinister: it begins to suggest that no principle is above the law, that the law does not exist to advance human life or civilization, but rather exists for its own sake, and must be obeyed out of a Kantian sort of duty, no matter how much sacrifice is involved.

This of course would mean that the people who write and enforce the law can use it for any purpose, whether it protects individual rights, or infringes them.

[Boydstun]

Correct.

I should add, nec, that not all violent attacks on the existing system of law are out of concern for protecting individual rights. For example, the man who was executed for blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He was a mass murderer, and what he did is rightly prohibited by law.

[necrovore]

20 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

I should add, nec, that not all violent attacks on the existing system of law are out of concern for protecting individual rights.

I agree. I'll go further and say that even a legitimate grievance doesn't per se make violence the right thing to do.

A legitimate legal system does not regard itself as infallible, and therefore has built-in protections so that its mistakes can be corrected without having to discard the legal system as such. When these legal mechanisms are available, they should be used.

However, when a legal system comes to regard itself as infallible and discards those protections (or renders them useless), when it becomes unaccountable, then it is a dictatorship, and there is no way to get rid of a dictatorship while complying with the dictatorship's own laws. That is when force becomes necessary.

Even then, one has to look at what is proposed to come after it. Changing from one dictatorship to another is not helpful.

[Easy Truth]

3 hours ago, necrovore said:

However, when a legal system comes to regard itself as infallible and discards those protections (or renders them useless), when it becomes unaccountable, then it is a dictatorship, and there is no way to get rid of a dictatorship while complying with the dictatorship's own laws. That is when force becomes necessary.

Yes, but would you describe the current state of the country as "no way to get rid of a dictatorship"? If you can make that case successfully, then that would justify the burning of the cities and the Jan 6 event.

I would argue that neither was justified.

[tadmjones]

Violence is never justified except in defense.

What kind of country allows one political party to arrest and jail its political opponents?

[Easy Truth]

10 hours ago, tadmjones said:

What kind of country allows one political party to arrest and jail its political opponents?

If it were a situation where one political party does that all the time, that these parties don't shift in power, never changing leadership, then there is some form of authoritarianism/control/dictatorship that may in fact require violence to overthrow.

But when one of the parties selected judges that are now jailing some of their own members, it indicates that one party is not in fact in control at all times.

In other words, an indication of a one-party state would be that Republican judges would NOT be jailing Republicans. But they are. That was especially evident with the election legal challenges.

This country in fact is not a dictatorship, nor a one-party state.

[Jon Letendre]

Dershowitz Warns Of America's Abandonment Of The Rule Of Law (rumble.com)

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz:

"We are living in an age where the rule of law takes second place to the rule of politics and partisan result orientation. It's a very, very dangerous time."

...

" Even members of my own family are attacking me - "how dare you do anything that enables this new Adolf Hitler?" That's the way they think of Donald Trump. Now, if you think of him that way then you don't care about the rule of law.

"So many liberals, so many progressives, so many left-wingers have told me they know they're sacrificing the rule of law, but it's worth it to get Trump - "if we don't get Trump, it'll be worse." And the thesis of my book, I say it outright in my first chapter, it's much more dangerous and much more of a negative precedent in the future if we compromise our rule of law in order to prevent somebody who you think is dangerous - people disagree - that's up to the American public - let them vote!"

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

"We are living in an age where the rule of law takes second place to the rule of politics and partisan result orientation. It's a very, very dangerous time."

There has historically always been some partisan bias in the law but not to the point of creating a collapse in the long run. After all, the Constitution has not been followed for a very long time. Individual rights are trashed routinely. It's been dangerous for a long time.

The case Dershowitz would have to make is that it is extraordinarily different now. He can't say "Here is a completely innocent man being treated like a criminal". If he does, he's wrong.

Trump has done some things that a Republican or Democratic court could find him guilty of.

It does not seem more dangerous than other times, for instance, will this cause a civil war? It doesn't look like it.

Some will complain ... and then the Republicans will do the same thing to some Democrat ... and some will complain about that.

[Doug Morris]

As long as Trump gets due process and fair trials, these prosecutions do not threaten the rule of law.

[tadmjones]

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

As long as Trump gets due process and fair trials, these prosecutions do not threaten the rule of law.

Adam’s Alien and Sedition, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, FDR detention of the Japanese and perhaps some other acts of the abuse of executive privilege/power can be seen as motivated by the intention to protect the nation against a perceived danger. 
 

Using the legal system to target a specific individual motivated by removing the ability of that individual to challenge your governmental power , unless there is one and you are the messiah , is not being done in the service of preserving or protecting the health of the nation , mostly on the basis that your actions interfere with the public’s ability to choose their own leaders.

The indictment brought by Bragg is a joke and an abuse of office.

[necrovore]

5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

As long as Trump gets due process and fair trials, these prosecutions do not threaten the rule of law.

When people are treated unequally under the law, e.g., because of their political views, that threatens the rule of law.

When laws are "open to interpretation," or when they are prosecuted selectively, that threatens the rule of law.

[Boydstun]

At least the "death and destruction" Trump warned of were he indicted has not come about. Some have suggested that was because too many of the really violent loons are currently in jail from their behaviors at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The Trump supporters who took to the street for the NYC process today were law abiding.

I imagine that talk of "death and destruction" was wishful thinking about what supporters would do for him. Like when people bandy about punishment in hell in the afterlife, which is human wishful thinking (fantasy).

Edited April 5, 2023 by Boydstun

[Doug Morris]

The election tampering in Georgia and inciting the insurrection on January 6 are both attacks on our political system that need to be prosecuted.  If there are serious grounds for accusing Trump of recklessness with classified material, that is also pretty serious and may need to be prosecuted.

Bragg's prosecution may be iffier, but if there is an ulterior motive involved, it may have more to do with the other three cases and/or Trump's much-greater-than-usual dishonesty than with his being a political opponent.

 

[Doug Morris]

If the Democrats are inventing phony charges just to influence the election, why didn't they do this 4 or 8 years ago?  Why didn't they do it to the people who ran against Obama or to George W. Bush?

 

[Jon Letendre]

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If the Democrats are inventing phony charges just to influence the election, why didn't they do this 4 or 8 years ago?  Why didn't they do it to the people who ran against Obama or to George W. Bush?

 

First, asking questions about past elections is not the way to detect that the charges are phony, instead you look at the charges and read people like Dershowitz who are legal experts and have no pony in the race.

That said, John McCain ran against Obama in 2008. McCain was viciously anti-Trump right up to his death. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan ran against Obama in 2012. Both Romney and Ryan are viciously anti-Trump to this day. George W Bush is viciously anti-Trump to this day, as is his brother Jeb and as was their father, HW, right up to his death. Dick Cheney was GW Bush's VP and he is viciously anti-Trump, as is his daughter Liz.

Maybe all those Republicans were no threat to the Washington good old boys club. Maybe all those Republicans went against their own party's voters and were spared persecution by that club precisely because they are loyal members of that club and Trump is the first real opposition to it.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Jon Letendre

[Doug Morris]

What has Trump actually done, not just said, that constitutes effective opposition to that good old boys club?  Criminal actions shouldn't count here, since they are legitimate grounds for prosecution.

 

[tadmjones]

Actually act to start to cut down on illegal immigration, military pull backs, NATO pushback and demonstrate that corporate media is compromised, not partisan bias but narrative drivers? 

[Jon Letendre]

6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

What has Trump actually done, not just said, that constitutes effective opposition to that good old boys club?

Not enough yet.

Trump 2024

[Doug Morris]

Why should any immigration be illegal?

 

[tadmjones]

Pragmatic concerns of population change and the extent of associated political disruption.

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by tadmjones

[Doug Morris]

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Pragmatic concerns of population change and the extent of associated political disruption.

 

So you're wiling to violate people's rights over pragmatic concerns?

[necrovore]

On 4/6/2023 at 10:28 PM, Doug Morris said:

If the Democrats are inventing phony charges just to influence the election, why didn't they do this 4 or 8 years ago?

They did, with all that phony Russian collusion hoax stuff...

6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Why should any immigration be illegal?

I can think of a few reasons:

(1) They objectively have a highly contagious disease which could make our own people severely sick or dead.

(2) They are murderers escaped from prison and we think they actually got a fair trial and are guilty.

(3) They are being brought here against their will to be used as slaves or human sacrifices or the like.

(4) They openly proclaim that they want to come here to rob banks or kill people or do other illegal things.

If I missed anything, it would have to be just as serious. Maybe some of these things might not count as "immigration" in much the same way that extortion isn't "economic activity."

[tadmjones]

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

So you're wiling to violate people's rights over pragmatic concerns?

In what way does meeting certain legal strictures for entry/immigration into a free nation qualify as a violation of non citizen rights?

[tadmjones]

As to pragmatic concerns , given the level of our current welfare structure (social security and medical funding) unlimited immigration would be a more politically palatable situation if immigrants were charged a one time fee equivalent to a fair estimation of the average payroll/income tax a citizen would have contributed by the age of emigration. Along with a similar scheme for property taxes on a local level.

One obstacle (among others) in implementing such a system would be large business concerns that pay wage earners , citizens using valid identification , social security numbers , would have a portion of their labor costs rise at least 6% overnight. FICA and Medicare payroll deductions to wage earners are matched by the employer. In some instances this means currently wage payers to ‘undocumented’ employees , not only can hide the non contribution of the matching portion but can also deduct the taxes , an instant ‘rebate’. Large business concerns wield ‘more’ political power than citizens , currently, as illegal immigration is a net gain for their labor costs the status quo will probably perpetuate.

[Doug Morris]

On 4/8/2023 at 6:12 PM, tadmjones said:

In what way does meeting certain legal strictures for entry/immigration into a free nation qualify as a violation of non citizen rights?

Unless their entry is involuntary or physically endangers someone, imposing legal strictures on entry or immigration violates their moral rights to freedom of movement and trade.