wilmott.com

A man is free when he must obey no other man but only the law.

Given that a sitting American President has been given carte blanche by America's Supreme Court to inflict whatever punishment he wants on anyone he wants, regardless of whether it is a criminal violation of their rights and provided only that he can shoehorn it into being an "official act," America cannot really be considered part of the free world any longer.

I hope there will be an ocean breeze at whatever gulag I end up in.

A man is free when he must obey no other man but only the law.

And what is it - the law? As far as I know, it's a few words written by a man. Perhaps already dead.

Better if he's already dead.

John Rawls theory of justice: laws should be made as if through a veil of ignorance, whereby the lawmakers don't know which end of the laws they will find themselves on.

Given that a sitting American President has been given carte blanche by America's Supreme Court to inflict whatever punishment he wants on anyone he wants, regardless of whether it is a criminal violation of their rights and provided only that he can shoehorn it into being an "official act," America cannot really be considered part of the free world any longer.

Not necessarily, it depends on the philosophy of the law. Positivists argue that law is a few lines of text that we should hold in reverence for some strange reason. Realists, on the other hand, argue that law is simply a tool for exercising power and the sovereign is elevated above the law. In this case, the sovereign becomes the president, assuming the position of an eastern ruler.

Erm.

I think the reason for "reverence" for a few lines of text as the law is in that they are, in theory, available for all to see and know, and they don't change except through elaborate processes.

So if the law says I can sleep in until noon, I can expect to be able to sleep in until noon without anyone troubling me ... or with the consequences of whatever enforcement of the law exists upon anyone who does trouble me as I take advantage of that law.

The law might say I can sleep in only until Smith says I must wake up, in which case I have to obey Smith in that regard, and not only the law.

But at least in knowing that, I know that the law impedes my freedom, and I can decide whether or not to rebel against it for that reason.

Behind every act of the state there is always a human decision, Marsden. You may think you are only obeying words written by a deceased white male, but in reality you are obeying a living man who decided to turn those words into actions.

So basically the same as all the mathematics we know.

I can generally work with that.

And what is it - the law? As far as I know, it's a few words written by a man. Perhaps already dead.

Better if he's already dead.

Is this statement not too conservative for you? A progressive should trust living people of colour rather than deceased white males.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Frank Wilhoit, musical composer

The dead, having no interests at all, are disinterested in whom the law protects and whom the law bonds.

Maybe the law continues to reflect what their interests were when they were alive, but at least their interests are detached from it.

No?

Some define conservatism as trusting the old more than the young and trusting the dead more than the living.

The mental and moral corruption of the SCOTUS notwithstanding, their highly unprofessional carte blanche gift to the wannabe dictator may turn out to be unusable, a blindgänger. On more than one occasion, the US military stated in very clear terms to then-POTUS Trump that it will not obey illegal orders. Despite having an international rap sheet long enough to circle the earth, the US military is probably the sanest domestic institution in that increasingly crazy place.

If he orders nuclear strikes on Sacramento and Albany, do you think they will resist?

A Russian Tale

The tsar our little father had grown old, very old. Now he could not even strangle a dove with his own hands. Sitting on his throne he was golden and frigid. Only his beard grew, down to the floor and farther.
Then someone else ruled, it was not known who. Curious folk peeped into the palace windows but Krivonosov screened the windows with gibbets. Thus only the hanged saw anything.
In the end the tsar our little father died for good. The bells rang and rang, yet they did not bring his body out. Our tsar had grown into the throne. The legs of the throne had become all mixed up with the legs of the tsar. His arm and the armrest were one. It was impossible to tear him loose. And to bury the tsar along with the golden throne - what a shame.

My dad made a similar comparison, only to Brezhnev in his last years, when his health deteriorated. Then Kirilenko, Andropov et al. pulled the strings. Disturbing to think it’s now happening in the US. Isn’t going to end well.

Leonid Brezhnev was six years younger on the day of his death than Joe Biden is now.