[FRIAM] corruption and impartiality

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Spot on, Steve. I mean, I reject Lerner's suggestion that procedural rights, covering abortion to some greater or lesser extent, are somehow less fundamental than "substantive" rights. "The law" can only be *complete* if it's considered a model of the entire society, which leads to your natural conclusion that it's everywhere (and nowhere, if we're careful about that word), in both definition and computation.

The question raised by the IDEA report is one of engineering vs natural science and shared values. So, this is our justice system, where evil-doers like Rittenhouse and Reinoehl simply reap the persnickety, artifactual, consequences of the way it's semi-structured. Do we let it stand? Or do we reform it? What shared value(s) would we target as engineers? And if we choose reformation, is it a nudge approach? Overhaul approach? Etc.

When literally everything from SCOTUS down to the use of leaf blowers is suspect, where should our skeptical attentions be applied? I mean, I can forgive the right wing morons marching against vaccine mandates because *I* don't know where to put my energies, either. We're both confused. We're all just a little bit arrogant in thinking our motivated slicing is somehow more important than others' motivated slicing.

On 11/23/21 6:12 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> It seems trite but I'd say the law was *everywhere* and *nowhere* at the same time.   Jacob Blake was killed *by the law* because he was presumed to be afoul of "the law", but many felt that the "lawmen" who killed him were operating outside or above "the law".   When "the law" couldn't hold them accountable for this presumed "unlawful" action, a large portion of the citizenry decided to *push the law* by expressing their *lawful right* to demonstrate but then with some of them stepping over some lines of *the law* with various acts of property violence (and perhaps violence against police in a few cases?)   When Rittenhouse obtained a semi-automatic assault rifle he did so *outside the law* and then when he showed up on the street claiming (in his mind and after the fact to the jury) to be there to *enforce the law*, it seems that he is at least *pushing* the law as hard as the protestors on the street *threatening* violence with their mere presence/posture.  Carrying a (n
> apparently) loaded weapon in public (especially during civil unrest) is nothing less than a *threat* of violence and a strong risk of breaking *the law*. "Don't take your guns to town" as Glen has invoked before.
> 
> The police who drove past Rittenhouse, even offered him a bottle of water *after* having shot 3 people were "being the law" in some sense (doing their job as they understood it?)...  and then when he was collected (on his/family/lawyers') terms rather than hunted down (like the Antifa-presumed fellow in WA about the same time) and executed in the street (apparently within the law because the officers/shooters felt they saw he might have a weapon?)  The jury trial (starting with charges, continuing with judge assignment and jury selection) was all an exercise of *the law*.   The courtroom scene unfolded "according to the law" even if some of us might question some of the activities/postures the judge adopted, I don't believe he exceeded his authority or jurisdiction.   The jury exonerated Rittenhouse on *all counts* precisely as the system is designed to work, even if I am personally concerned about various implications of that decision.   For the most part, the protests in WI
> and across the country *after* the decision were executed *within the law*, but as with the initiating protests, have an overtone of threatening violence, threatening to break out of the confines of "the law", as did Rittenhouse when he swaggered down the street with a loaded military style assault weapon at-ready.
> 
> So, while I sympathize with Nick's ideation that "well crafted, executed, and defended laws" *should* yield a kind/gentle/just/healthy society, I think virtually everything we are seeing today indicates that the limits of that have been exceeded.   Unfortunately, this circumstance just feeds the authoritarian ideation which is that one *must* clamp down as hard as necessary to obtain compliance with *the law*.  I say unfortunately, because history indicates that such exercise of absolute power, even within the constraints of well-designed laws, becomes it's own problem pretty quickly.
> 
> Add in the "authority" of God (or similar) and it gets yet-more-squirrely because in fact one can justify anything under that kind of absolute authority.   At best, it seems we get religious wars as absurd as Swift's Big/Little-enders in Lilliput under the edicts of Lunderog and the Blundecral.

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ