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?
>>> >>>
