Eric,
Going all postmodern on you — there is no such thing as *Truth*, only
*Somebody's Truth*.
This is painfully evident at the moment in the fallacy of "fact checking," all the assertions of
"misinformation," and "follow the science."
I do not see totalitarians of any stripe engaged in 'destroying' the truth;
only in demanding that *Their Truth* is the one and only *Truth*.
And, totalitarians are not the only ones engaged in this endeavor—everyone who
has or wants to have power of whatever degree does the exact same thing.
davew
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024, at 12:39 PM, Santafe wrote:
> You know, I don’t mind the phrase “above the law”. It may not be
> tailored to lower-level mechanistic arguing about one or another case,
> but it acknowledges a system context in which a society will operate
> under some kind of hierarchy of prerogatives.
>
> I don’t normally think about law in such hierarchies, and do more often
> about truth. But I think similar arguments are appropriate for both,
> with certain modulations.
>
> What (re. power) do we want from truth in a society? We want truth to
> stand as a referee over all contesting claims. This is why
> authoritarians, but even more totalitarians, have as a first-line
> priority the killing of truth. Not just evading it or disregarding it,
> but publicly setting it on fire, to make the point that there will be
> _no_ referee over the exercise of power by whoever happens to be
> holding it. Arendt has some wonderful passages on the way the Nazi
> movement was, from before its takeover through its ending, a project of
> substituting fictitious worlds for the real world in the lives of their
> followers. This (now coming from me, not Arendt) is why the hopeful
> totalitarian doesn’t tell borderline lies or ambiguous lies; he tells
> extravagant, absurd lies, to make the point that any holdout hope for
> truth will be ground up and blown away in the movements movement.
>
> The fragility of a role for truth in a society is that a commitment to
> it has to be a kind of escrow. The society has to grant truth
> legitimacy and authority, and then the various members have to be
> confined within that commitment when their own interests would motivate
> them to escape it. Ulysses at the mast, or something like that.
> Rawls’s veil of ignorance.
>
> The question of what law is, and who it is answerable to, is different
> because it is entirely conventional, unlike truth which has a very
> individually-judgeable aspect. But will the society’s legitimated
> notion of “law” be a tool for use by a king? By specifically the
> God-Emporer (Mao or, increasingly, Xi) or Louix IV or Napoleon? Will
> it be a tool for use by the holder of an office (Putin? Trump “if
> you’re the president they (SCOTUS) let you do it”)? Or is
> law-the-system claimed or intended to have prerogatives above those of
> specific persons, or of offices w.r.t. their occupants, and if so, in
> what is that prerogative vested? The charateristically vague notion of
> a “democracy” supposes that there should be some abstract entity — the
> “demos” — in which the prerogative of law is vested. But since
> abstract entities don’t operate in the material world, what we have is
> some edifice of institutions etc. that is meant to suitably instantiate
> a “demos”. We can complain about all the ways an actual, realized
> system fails to instantiate a demos well, or is aimed at a wrong
> concept of one. But that complaint is different from the distinction
> that, as the Maoist government promulgated him as increasingly
> semi-divine, there was no concept of a “demos” at all that had
> prerogatives above him.
>
> I think we lose that relevant notion of hierarchy of prerogatives if we
> abandon the “above” in “above the law”.
>
> Lot of hair-splitting for no substance; I know…
>
> Eric
>
>
>> On Oct 15, 2024, at 12:22, glen <geprope...@gmail.com
<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree. We're dancing around the meaning of "above the law" and it's a
terrible phrase. But people use it. So you have to have some way to parse it (again, based on
the *rest* of whatever it is someone says). Hardline positions like what Jochen and Dave are
taking can help develop such parsing strats, at least they help me.
>>
>> On a similar note, this article was very interesting to me because of both my long-term
interest in "mindreading" (which I'll now call "mentalizing", I guess) and my more
recent interest in replacing things like ontologies with LLMs:
>>
>> Defining key concepts for mental state attribution
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00077-6
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00077-6>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/15/24 09:11, steve smith wrote:
>>> I hope I'm not (just) muddying the water here, but I think "buffered from the remedies of
law" might be better than "above the law"? I think it applies not to just the wealthy and
powerful but to other ideosyncratic reasons like obscurity, anonymity, unpredictable-behaviour, etc...
>>> On 10/15/24 9:00 AM, glen wrote:
>>>> 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>
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>>> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com
<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> <mailto: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>
<mailto:friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>>; russ.abb...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>> <russ.abb...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com> <mailto: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>
<mailto: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> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>>; 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
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> 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>> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,irEARj2UuX0io2vsvo5UtQltYddWunshQQtMQfJZHxfHRYf3FJxoInm0IYVm9IwI4psALvtsK1hXymeqyUC5R_tfW5jZF7zWWQQ1odUIr2o6avItdKxsAJw,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,irEARj2UuX0io2vsvo5UtQltYddWunshQQtMQfJZHxfHRYf3FJxoInm0IYVm9IwI4psALvtsK1hXymeqyUC5R_tfW5jZF7zWWQQ1odUIr2o6avItdKxsAJw,&typo=1> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,QL0WRnoyblSkIf4AvUE9OJjbfulLIAmV4kaOMzv6lQXTwCmW2EkBdX41PHQpVDSu-p7sRh4gsqE26d1Giz5pL5Nj5av4laZQ11Mt76uPpQE,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,QL0WRnoyblSkIf4AvUE9OJjbfulLIAmV4kaOMzv6lQXTwCmW2EkBdX41PHQpVDSu-p7sRh4gsqE26d1Giz5pL5Nj5av4laZQ11Mt76uPpQE,&typo=1>>
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,NLO_67atoq3F2A4fB5urAh8xb9NkFr6meKf_b2Ya-AZDIOD9qAQghy5M1IF_Q05hIzoBKb18k6r7vb4BiGopaOxkFFYtJyPv-EeoOVuU&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,NLO_67atoq3F2A4fB5urAh8xb9NkFr6meKf_b2Ya-AZDIOD9qAQghy5M1IF_Q05hIzoBKb18k6r7vb4BiGopaOxkFFYtJyPv-EeoOVuU&typo=1> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,VkCRM_BeShuRcsrz7BIuFbLjt-HSBDroXWGmBOeDO6BmTy31h_kdbYCzyPKN_Rg0M2BUO3p_mBX6qdrZ3C3Q5zqIGvcu2DuESkkHbT0_HJ1D7RPe8Dij&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,VkCRM_BeShuRcsrz7BIuFbLjt-HSBDroXWGmBOeDO6BmTy31h_kdbYCzyPKN_Rg0M2BUO3p_mBX6qdrZ3C3Q5zqIGvcu2DuESkkHbT0_HJ1D7RPe8Dij&typo=1>>>
>>>>> >>> >>>
>>>>> >>> >>> 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,mlWEnEdNzLv04QI10AIP0LMUOn93iXch1nMegLlQPAOq-cYBIqujJW4gdYUEuQTKpPUzp1ea879JC3t5SphDwTnV7qr07N3d5N_qWLqcAjurOEOKwUZoDA,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,mlWEnEdNzLv04QI10AIP0LMUOn93iXch1nMegLlQPAOq-cYBIqujJW4gdYUEuQTKpPUzp1ea879JC3t5SphDwTnV7qr07N3d5N_qWLqcAjurOEOKwUZoDA,,&typo=1> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,9VLze-Ya03T3kg-RkUd0H2MT8KzhjXM1_P3mWd2yhwzMisAO6YtkAVx_s8XT8vXCkAhdFAGojgJWrOEnJm3bqkoFhlRobx71sav3C5aNAQ,,&typo=1
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,9VLze-Ya03T3kg-RkUd0H2MT8KzhjXM1_P3mWd2yhwzMisAO6YtkAVx_s8XT8vXCkAhdFAGojgJWrOEnJm3bqkoFhlRobx71sav3C5aNAQ,,&typo=1>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,kd1puIuKqRwYLdYLvOGXWmcK8yvoq-6V6UyCgEYrWEMcCgau9Jh9EDf4mId5w8MTz65ekcYWJKhQArb0V_-b-5JigQzIBkIaSINdHdVQGa-sdMe-lAQ,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,kd1puIuKqRwYLdYLvOGXWmcK8yvoq-6V6UyCgEYrWEMcCgau9Jh9EDf4mId5w8MTz65ekcYWJKhQArb0V_-b-5JigQzIBkIaSINdHdVQGa-sdMe-lAQ,&typo=1> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,NurRTSqj5GjO0P5dvBQvndqnW4TBWCCpQjK5xVXcDuHkiaqJ1XOtzFeGSRgp5MO9z3vTP4RZWXFMT7rTd68npa8dNPeUXmmgquZsMXu1Aw,,&typo=1
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,NurRTSqj5GjO0P5dvBQvndqnW4TBWCCpQjK5xVXcDuHkiaqJ1XOtzFeGSRgp5MO9z3vTP4RZWXFMT7rTd68npa8dNPeUXmmgquZsMXu1Aw,,&typo=1>>>). 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?
>>>>> >>> >>>
