Rule of Law or Rule of the person-which is more important?

[Chris]

I always figured "laws" were the rules for how reasonable men and unreasonable men were to interact.

If all men were reasonable, we wouldn't need them, would we?

I don't think so. Even reasonable 'men' (aaargh!) may create a set of rules for societies to live by. This is what the law is supposed to be, a reasonable set of rules for people/mankind/men and women to live by.

(Disclaimer, the bolding is not because I am politically correct. It is because I am not men, I am women and by definition, the poster excluded me and my type from his discussion. That is kinda rude. I don't know if this is deliberate or whether he is simply quoting from a set of literature that was written in the style but I thought to let the poster know that that is rude and not something that we want to encourage here.)

Laws, or at least rules for people to live together are as old as mankind - this includes the ability to enforce the rules. I have a sister who holds a Doctorate in African Tribal law, specializing in the the unwritten, the societal rules that are spoken, but not written and have been passed down from generation to generation. Those rules have been codified and used by societies as much as our written systems today is used.

There is this little story to illustrate the point that laws are meant to be sets of rules for societies to live together, and not sets of rules to 'govern' people. There is this old Roman Dutch law that if you lived higher than street level, it is prohibited to toss out of the window, the contents of your nightly-pot-that-is-stored-under-the bed. Apparently people did that kind of thing regularly. In African tribal law, the unwritten stuff that is passed down from generations, the focus is on how to trade animals. What is considered fair and what not. War between tribes is also very stylishly codified.

Laws are not meant to control people. Laws are meant to be a codification of customs and agreed to rules, to assist people to live together.

 

[sollie]

...laws are meant to be sets of rules for societies to live together, and not sets of rules to 'govern' people.

Laws are not meant to control people. Laws are meant to be a codification of customs and agreed to rules, to assist people to live together.

Actually Chris, I think you and CB may be in agreement on this?

Sollie

 

[bob saunders]

I don't think so. Even reasonable 'men' (aaargh!) may create a set of rules for societies to live by. This is what the law is supposed to be, a reasonable set of rules for people/mankind/men and women to live by.

(Disclaimer, the bolding is not because I am politically correct. It is because I am not men, I am women and by definition, the poster excluded me and my type from his discussion. That is kinda rude. I don't know if this is deliberate or whether he is simply quoting from a set of literature that was written in the style but I thought to let the poster know that that is rude and not something that we want to encourage here..

Little hyper sensitive are we. Normally when a person says mankind they are referring to the whole human race not just the male species. Do you need to have political correct language in every conversation not to offend people such as yourself. I'm sure sure have the ability to read based on previous statement from CB that he wasn't just referring the one gender. This this case when he says men I could be wrong, but I doubt he meant just males. Rules of law are made to protect the weak from the predator type.

 

[Chris]

Little hyper sensitive are we.

Not at all. Just perhaps making sure that you understand what is acceptable language in this instance. The word man is the word man. The word mankind is mankind. The poster used the word man or men. I am neither a man, not am I of the group of men. And I'm not the only woman on this board who is really unhappy about this language you know. If a moderator starts complaining about usage of words, it does mean that there are a few pm's in the box already. So, I ask you and all of man-kind, to stick to acceptable language. The alternative is that you're going to have the women after your blood - which may just be not too cool.

sollie yes, I do think there is good conceptual agreement. Where Cobraboy and I differ, is in the nuances and interpretations and implementations, not usually in the concept.

 

[cobraboy]

Not at all. Just perhaps making sure that you understand what is acceptable language in this instance. The word man is the word man. The word mankind is mankind. The poster used the word man or men. I am neither a man, not am I of the group of men. And I'm not the only woman on this board who is really unhappy about this language you know. If a moderator starts complaining about usage of words, it does mean that there are a few pm's in the box already. So, I ask you and all of man-kind, to stick to acceptable language. The alternative is that you're going to have the women after your blood - which may just be not too cool.

Oh, puh-leeeeeze, Chris.

"Man" was the freakin' generic human sense. To get one's panties wadded over that use is just a ~tad~ PC extreme. The generic use in "not acceptable"? I dug through the DR1 rules, and couldn't come up with that one. Maybe one of the double-secret hidden rules I don't know about? Please, pray tell, a link to that rule...

Seems to me, within the context of reasonable-ness, some "persons" are clearly not.

Perhaps men/women/gays/lesbian.hermaphrodite/transgendered/asexual people being unreasonable is the reason men/women/gays/lesbian.hermaphrodite/transgendered/asexual people need so many frickin' LAWS...

Sheesh...

BTW-am I to believe that women on this board took such a degree of offense to my generic use of "man/men" that they PM'd you, and not me. Boy, that's really telling me...:cheeky:

 

[cobraboy]

I guess with that kind of thinking there would be no sub-prime mortgage crisis and no "forced" fore-closures. Everybody would have a seat when the music stopped.

 

[johne]

Simply--laws to enforce the payment of a debt. No force-No pay.

john

 

[Chris]

BTW-am I to believe that women on this board took such a degree of offense to my generic use of "man/men" that they PM'd you, and not me. Boy, that's really telling me...:cheeky:

Yes! You may believe that. And she is no shrinking violet either.

 

[bob saunders]

Not at all. Just perhaps making sure that you understand what is acceptable language in this instance.

.

Are you, Chris referring to the generic " you""as in mankind or just the males on this board. You need to make yourself clearer as now you have offended me by possibly singling me out. But, as I can figure out what you meant, as opposed to what you said I'm sure you, Chris, didn't mean to offend me. I'll accept your apology in advance because I am a reasonable man.

 

[Chris]

Are you, Chris referring to the generic " you""as in mankind or just the males on this board. You need to make yourself clearer as now you have offended me by possibly singling me out. But, as I can figure out what you meant, as opposed to what you said I'm sure you, Chris, didn't mean to offend me. I'll accept your apology in advance because I am a reasonable man.

No, this was meant to you specifically. The following is more general.

I'm going to say again .. if someone uses 'man' or 'men', it is very difficult to figure out that I (and other women) should read 'mankind'. It really is impossible. I've had a number of .. uhm .. enquiries from women about this for some months now. They read something like this: "When is someone going to tell that XXX XXXX that the word 'man' signifies a human being with two b@lls and a d!ck" and 'men' means more than one of those." So, hence I addressed this unpopular issue. Believe me, it is better this way LOL.

Perhaps you fellows will now understand that 'mankind' is perhaps a better way to go about this thing and the topic can continue.

 

[cobraboy]

Yes! You may believe that. And she is no shrinking violet either.

She must be if she chose not to come to the source of her angst, instead of running to a moderator.

Sounds like a real "take 'em all on" firecracker!:cheeky:

 

[cobraboy]

Simply--laws to enforce the payment of a debt. No force-No pay.

john

The contract was entered into by two parties, "reasonable man/women/gay/lesbian/transgendered/hermaphrodite/asexual persons*", for their mutual benefit, without coercion. The sanctions of non-payment are clearly outlined in the contract.

'Spain to me how foreclosure is the unreasonable, unilateral use of force?















Gotta cover my bases. I knew that the board had spelling and grammar police, in several languages, but didn't realize it had the PC Police, too. Who woulda thunk it?:bunny::cheeky:

 

[Chris]

We all understand 'two parties'. The rest is not necessary.

 

[cobraboy]

We all understand 'two parties'. The rest is not necessary.

So besides the spelling, grammar and PC Police, we now have Content Police, too?

Wow!

DR1 is ever changing!!!!

Woot!!!!!!!!!!!!:bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny:

 

[El sabelot?]

So besides the spelling, grammar and PC Police, we now have Content Police, too?

Wow!

DR1 is ever changing!!!!

Woot!!!!!!!!!!!!:bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny:

(cobra, te comiste las comas.)

So, besides the spelling, grammar, and PC Police...

 

[fightfish]

Methinks it is better to refer to a person as an %. That way, no one might get offended, and no one will know to which % of the human race we are referring. How beautifully sterile!
Check out Thomas Hobbs, regarding law, rule thereof,etc. Many of the questions regarding the individual and the relationship between % and the state are well covered in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights of the U.S. More interesting, the background and philosophical background is very rich.

 

[Chris]

OK, stay with me here .. this is 'intellectual stuff'. LOL ...

Methinks it is better to refer to a person as an %. That way, no one might get offended, and no one will know to which % of the human race we are referring. How beautifully sterile!

That is indeed the problem, one of sterility. No-one knew whether cobraboy was referring to men, to women or to both - or - if only to men, whether he was doing so deliberately, or if to both sexes, he was being deliberately obtuse.

Anyway back to the topic. The question was posed ... the rule of law, or ... the rule of 'the person' which some of us translated as 'sovereign man'. Uhm .. sovereign man, sounds noble and strong and romantic eh. Somehow it is so very mundane and boring to say responsible sovereign individuals.

CB said early on

I'm ruled by intellect. Ethics and responsibility comes from that.

and

The two are different: the Law for a group vs. individual sovereignty.
The goal is a balance between the two.
Any time someone proposes something "for the greater good", someone will be losing some sovereignty, but assuredly not the one uttering the words.

So --- I started testing these philosophical statements by proposing something for the 'greater good' .. i.e., don't be sexist in your language to women, it is rude and demeaning and women are part of the whole.

Oh Boy .. then the romance of the sovereign man thing and the intellect and the ethics thing and responsiblity thing and the balance thing came tumbling down. Firstly, some posters started attacking me ... and demeaning me. How dare I tell all these 'sovereign men' that their language is sexist and rude? LOL Then, one poster did some sneaky stuff to try and 'get back' at me. Shame! So, my conclusion is that those who hold themselves up as 'soverein man' types, are more noise than substance.

I'll leave you to ponder how this could be. My task for the day is to go off to the town square from some discourses with Socrates. :laugh:

 

[Chris]

Johne, to the topic and to the point - about the example of foreclosures. This may be difficult to even contemplate, but I think that if one lends money to another, you need to be lending in such a way to assure that your loan gets paid back. I think this is a personal responsibility, and not a legal one. I think we've made our society overly complicated by all kinds of insurances, assurances and instruments by which we try and ensure that our loan gets paid back. (And we know what happens if we start trading in all those worthless assurances and insurances - worthless paper basically with no intrinsic value.)

The Dominican way is quite interesting here .. (No, no, I don't mean we all need to hire Vinnie to break some knees:laugh Because there still is a sense of community, and a smaller community, it seems to be easier to take personal responsibility for what one does ... everyone knows where you are anyway.

 

[cobraboy]

Oh Boy .. then the romance of the sovereign man thing and the intellect and the ethics thing and responsiblity thing and the balance thing came tumbling down. Firstly, some posters started attacking me ... and demeaning me. How dare I tell all these 'sovereign men' that their language is sexist and rude? LOL Then, one poster did some sneaky stuff to try and 'get back' at me. Shame! So, my conclusion is that those who hold themselves up as 'soverein man' types, are more noise than substance.

Or perhaps some "sovereign men" don't get their panties all bunched up over such an issue. The collective "men" is used in some of the world's greatest documents. To say the intent is sexist is bulls#!t.

Maybe ~some~ folks (ahem) are just looking for a fight, Chris. Right?

IMO, if one gets indignant over the use of the collective "men", I can just imagine his/her/transgendered it/asexual person stress and angst over IMPORTANT issues.

Some ignore nits. Others spend their energy picking them.

 

[Chirimoya]

Language, at least, has evolved.