Well, OK. I agree with the gist. But rather than target Congress, the Admin, and
bureaucrats, I'd target wealthy people, whatever their day job might be. There are people
mostly above the law. Musk is one of them. But more importantly, there's a couple of
handfuls of companies that own the world: Blackstone, KKR, Carlyle, Bain, etc. To boot,
those companies "are people", are effectively immortal, and can't seriously be
punished for any crime they might commit.
And this point is definitely a systemic one. Even if every single member of the
entire government were biased against those who wield this power, the system
has too many weak points to hold them accountable. When faced with a super
villain like Musk, it takes a champion (at least one, but more often a team) to
counter-game the system (e.g. Whitehouse, Warren, Wyden, etc.). And the
champions usually eventually succumb to biology or corruption.
On 10/14/24 15:52, Prof David West wrote:
True, citing exceptions to specific laws does not indict the */system/*: /"We mean
the entire legislative, executive, and judicial enterprise."/
However, the way the phrase,/"no one is above the law,"/ is popularly used,
especially now and in the political context, it is not a systemic assertion, but a
personal one: hold X accountable because no one is above the specific law that X
ostensibly violated. _I will accept chastisement for being equally sloppy in usage_.
Also, I would argue that the system has been corrupted to such a point that a
whole class of people in particular roles are above the law systemically:
- Congress abdicated its responsibility to enact laws, ceding it to bureaucrats.
- Those same bureaucrats usurp the role of the judiciary by indicting and
trying those who violate their laws (and they are laws, including criminal
felony laws), crafting their own rules of evidence and procedure, and
determining guilt or innocence with no recourse to the 'Systems' judiciary.
- If you include the explosion in use of 'executive decree'; you might argue
that a substantial part of the executive branch of government in the U.S. is
'above the law'.
davew
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024, at 12:15 PM, glen wrote:
> I think that was Jochen that said it, not Russ. But your refutation is
> either a fallacy of ambiguity or composition. By "the rule of law", we
> don't mean the rule of any particular law ... like a city statute
> against walking your alligator down the street or whatever. We mean the
> entire legislative, executive, and judicial enterprise. Of course,
> particular slices of the population are exempt from some particular
> law. E.g. London cabbies used to be allowed to urinate wherever without
> regard to the typical laws governing such. That doesn't imply that
> London cabbies are "above the law". I suppose you could say they're
> above that particular set of laws. But "exempt" isn't synonymous with
> "above", anyway.
>
> I don't think the SCOTUS ruling on immunity claims the President is
> above the law, contrary to the implications of the left's rhetoric,
> only that they're exempt from some/most/all laws when executing the
> role of their office. It's bad. But it's not bad in the way the
> rhetoric implies.
>
> On 10/14/24 09:27, Prof David West wrote:
>> Sorry Russ, but /"Nobody should be above the law if the rule of law has any
meaning in a democratic society,"/ is an absurd idea.
>>
>> Assuming the US is a democratic society (in some sense), I would defy you to find any
existing law that does not have exceptions that place someone, in some role or in some
cirsumstance, "above" that law.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024, at 8:58 AM, John Kennison wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on behalf
of Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 3:02 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com>>; russ.abb...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>
<russ.abb...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>>
>>> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance
>>>
>>> I don’t think that’s fair. It depends on the opponent and what they
represent both in terms of ideology and the sociological phenomenon they are a part of.
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 11:52 AM
>>> *To:* russ.abb...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>; The Friday Morning Applied
Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance
>>>
>>>
>>> A president who murders his opponents would not be better than an evil
dictator in an authoritarian state. Putin's opponents like Navalny, Litvinenko and
Nemtsov were all brutally poisoned and/or murdered.
>>>
>>>
>>> But you are right, this possibility exists after the recent decision of
the supreme court. It seems to be a result of democratic backsliding. Nobody should be
above the law if the rule of law has any meaning in a democratic society.
>>>
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>
>>> From: Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>
<mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>>>
>>>
>>> Date: 7/16/24 7:48 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> <mailto:friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance
>>>
>>>
>>> Why has no one pointed out the possibility that if Trump wins, Biden could
take advantage of his newly declared immunity and have him assassinated?
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, 6:24 AM glen <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>
<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah. It's one thing to wish it or want it. It's another to think more
in Marcus' terms and come up with a more complex strategy not involving stupid 20 year
olds and no violence at all. I still hold out hope for my own personal conspiracy
theory. Biden becomes the nominee. After the convention fades, the Admnistration
announces Biden has gone to the hospital for bone spur surgery. Kamala takes over
temporarily and campaigns furiously for Biden-Harris. Biden is re-elected. Biden
recovers and gets through the Oath (fingers crossed). Then he goes back to the hospital
with some minor thing like a dizzy spell. Kamala takes over again. Biden's condition
worsens. First Female President. Biden recovers and becomes America's Grandpa.
>>>
>>> Come on Deep State. Make it happen. 8^D
>>>
>>> On 7/15/24 17:30, Russ Abbott wrote:
>>> > I wonder what Scott's response would have been to those of us who,
in response to the shooting, thought: better luck next time.
>>> > On 7/15/24 17:28, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> >> It ignores the option of doing things quietly and indirectly.
>>> >> On 7/15/24 16:46, glen wrote:
>>> >>> [Scott's] Prayer
>>> >>> https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117 <https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117>
<https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117 <https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm currently surrounded by people who believe intolerance is properly not tolerated. Scott's message,
here, seems extraordinary Christian, to me. (Real Christian, not the Christianism displayed in things like megachurches and whatnot cf
https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/ <https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/>
<https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/ <https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/>>). This faith that "going
high" will, in the long run, win out, seems naive to me. The temptation to "hoist the black flag and start slitting
throats" isn't merely a thresholded reaction, it's an intuitive grasp of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, tit-for-tat style
strategies, and Ashby's LoRV. But I'm open to changing my mind on that. Maybe I'm just too low-brow?
>>> >>>
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
