[FRIAM] [EXT] Re: tolerance of intolerance
steve smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Tue Oct 15 12:11:29 EDT 2024
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-bounces at redfish.com
>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Marcus Daniels
>> <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>>
>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 3:02 PM
>> >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>; Russ.Abbott at gmail.com
>> <mailto:Russ.Abbott at gmail.com> <Russ.Abbott at gmail.com
>> <mailto:Russ.Abbott at 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-bounces at redfish.com
>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 11:52 AM
>> >>> *To:* Russ.Abbott at gmail.com <mailto:Russ.Abbott at gmail.com>; The
>> Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com
>> <mailto:friam at 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.abbott at gmail.com
>> <mailto:russ.abbott at gmail.com> <mailto:russ.abbott at gmail.com
>> <mailto:russ.abbott at gmail.com>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Date: 7/16/24 7:48 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> >>>
>> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>> <mailto:friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at 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 <gepropella at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gepropella at 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?
>> >>> >>>
>
More information about the Friam
mailing list