Non Sub Homine? By Roderick on May 28, 2011 8 The President is above the law. The police are above the law. So whats the point of having laws, again? Arma Virumque, Ethics, Left-Libertarian, Terror, The Thin Blue Line
To keep you under?
because the so-called president and police dont adhere to the same laws that they atmept to forcefully apply to non-president-police isnt a reason not to have some ‘law’.
both are unjust in my opinion. i was assaulted and only got an apology. if had got a dui at my govt job i would have been fired.
a senator can drive drunk , finish their term and get a pension better than most priovate sector employees.
id be happy to start giving them some un-law back.
The point of my question wasn’t that we shouldn’t have law.
I don’t understand. How can the president and the police be above the law when we have votes? I mean these are accountable institutions. Just vote for their opponents and all will be well, I says.
The point is it’s so much more convenient for the president and the police.
I think the problem with these issues being debated is that the majority of people hold assumptions that libertarians would disagree with. The problem that I find when liberty minded people debate issues like police brutality and/or police actions in general is that the legitimacy of the powers that the police have is rarely is ever called into question I think that Roderick’s article, “Equality: The Unknown Ideal” http://mises.org/daily/804 is one of the best short explanations of the fundamental libertarian principle out there. As a further endorsement, if I were debating a statist and/or a law and order type, I would have them read that essay before they debated me in order to understand the presuppositions that I am bringing into the debate.
Using “law and order type” in that way is doublespeak (not to say that it isn’t common usage). It is precisely the “law and order type” that wants a certain class of people to be above the law, which usually results in chaos in the lives of those in the residual class.
Yes, that is very true. I actually think that pointing out the doublethink that such “law and order” types must engage in order to hold to the system that they do is a very important thing to do when debating such people. I think that if pressed, the hardcore authoritarians in the bunch will drop the whole law thing and endorse order is the only true thing of importance in society.