Do the Brits have it right on the rule of law

[KEND]

I see that the Brits are digging deep into Blair's involvement in the Iraq war. In spite of the fact that dubya was discussing invading Iraq several months before 9/11 there has been very little impetus to bring this matter to the investigative phase in the USA

[RobP2]

Yeah, but what will happen? Will Blair and co be prosecuted? No - they'll all retire to book deals, board positions and advisory jobs. I don't think I;ve ever know mistrust of politicians so high as it is right now

[yusuf]

mistrust of all politicians ...on all sides of the equation

[Darth Rock&Roll]

the political model is old. It needs change.

I no longer believe in democracy because it has been whittled down and corrupted into nothing more than a popularity contest. And following that, a dictatorship opf the majority or attempts at it in the case of my country where we have to deal with prorogation of parliament because our PM is weak and cannot deal with the opposition and will not call and election because he'll lose.

I am leaning more towards the philosopher kings of Plato's version of democracy as being worth a revisit. IN fact, I am picking up the old copy of the republic again this week and will give it a good going through to see if I fully agree with it. lol

I don't think voting narcissists in helps anyones country. But we seem to have government houses filled with self interested twats.

[shawnsegler]

Yeah a wise benevolent dictator would be dope.

I am leaning more towards the philosopher kings of Plato's version of democracy as being worth a revisit.

[yusuf]

or a benevolent super criminal, he could revitalise the economy by robbing every other country ..

[Steve James]

I am leaning more towards the philosopher kings of Plato's version of democracy as being worth a revisit.

Then you're leaning toward eugenics and social determinism ... meaning the State will decide what you are best "fit" to do.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Actually Steve, I think that was Karl Poppers accusation.

I don't take it at that value however.

Firstly, I don't believe our current version of democracy works.

Secondly I believe it's time for a new model.

Thirdly, I can see how Plato's philosopher king would be much more desirable as a leader for a country and it's well being.

Also, I would mix that in with a couple of other desirable traits of other models so that it wouldn't turn into tyranny, which can of course happen, but that can happen with any political model. Look at George W for instance. Elected and yet still he behaved as a tyrant would.

[Steve James]

Point is, in Plato's idealized Republic, not everyone would be able to be what he or she wanted. It's not about the resulting philosopher king; it's the process by which he's chosen and the fact that, in his kingdom, there Are slaves.

[Michael]

According to Aldous Huxley and others, it is now possible, through a variety of techniques, to get the enslaved to actually love their servitude. Darth would probably be the manager of the "Servitude—I'm lovin' it!" fast food french fry enabling regimen.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Steve, people can't do what they want now.

Remember the fight club speech? " You are not your job or the car you drive...etc etc"

And what of the process by which "they" are chosen? And what of the model construct being mixed with other constructs to find something better?
Or did you not read where I said that?

What in the world makes any of you think you're not slaves now?

Do you think that you can actually self actualize in this world without compromise? Do you actually think you can just pull yourself off the grid and live well without repercussions to that action?

You cannot, you will not and you have no desire to do so that is strong enough to provide you with the impetus to do so, or else you would.

You pay your taxes, you do your job as defined and you vote for the candidates that are placed in front of you. You have no say as to how your money that is taken from you is spent. Not even if you object that half of it is being used to pout bullets into other peoples heads.

I don't believe people for the most part are responsible enough for anarchy to work. I don't believe people on the whole are accountable enough for their actions for anarchy to work. I believe people are not fundamentally good. We are fundamentally self interested and will always go to our tribe first at the expense of all others. We would let a child die in a far off land so our old grandmother could live instead even if she only had one or two years less. we fear death and we consider death of another a loss! we mourn instead of celebrate lives.

There are so many manipulative constructs in place now that we are comfortable in our slavery and our bondage which is the end result of our wealth and apathy.

Oh you can run away for a little while, but you and me are both slaves and serving someone other than ourselves daily. day in and day out. believe it.

I would therefore support such an ideal as the philosopher kings. I do not think every human life is virtuous merely because it's a human. I do not even value my own life as much as that! lol

[Steve James]

And what of the process by which "they" are chosen?

Well, how abouts you go back to the Republic and say how the Guardians are chosen or become Guardians. I can't argue in the abstract about my liberty; but, I can say that many other forms of gov't offer less. There isn't even a word for "freedom" in some languages. Democracy is not a particular form of gov't anyway. It's an idea. There have been plenty of democracies that have also utilized slave labor. That, for example, was Plato's Greece; and he never advocated changing that situation. Basically, a democracy is where the people can participate in gov't and vote in their leaders. That wasn't Plato's idea, or ideal, at all. If you're willing to give up your ability to affect or participate in gov't, then that's your prerogative. In oligarchies, monarchies and totalitarian regimes, you aren't guaranteed that opportunities. Now, you can argue that we have a plutarchy here where money rules; but, that is different from arguing against "democracy." Anyway, so who would you like to see with all the power?

[Buddy]

Where's Ashoka when you need him?

[Walter Joyce]

Umm, where is "the rule of law" in this discussion?

[KEND]

Taken from Wikipedia
''The rule of law is an ancient ideal, and was discussed by Ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle around 350 BCE. Plato wrote:

Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.[9]
Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws."[10] The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."[11]

The Dubya era was more about rule by law, enforced by the patriot act, where the line between the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches was blurred