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

[MommC]

True chiri.......however one must consider that .....

we are a product of the culture we were raised in and the educational methodology of that time frame.
I, for one, find it difficult to be 'current usage,politically correct' and can't reconcile my thought process as to why some people get so offended at things that are not meant to be offensive. Yes it is difficult to discern at time when one can only read the written word and not see the body language or hear the inflection however I feel that MOST people are intelligent enough to realize when offense is meant and when it isn't.

Also 'Man" is much shorter to type than 'person' especially given that 'person' is defined as being

"human, individual ?sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes"[unquote] and 'man's' earliest definition is

1 a (1): an individual human[unquote]

So it looks like we're back to semantics.......

You wouldn't need all those bracket if you rephrased it thus:

There is no 'sexism', 'racism' , just that innate inner sense that says all PEOPLE while maybe not 'equal' (depending on your concept of equality) are 'worthy' (read as having worth!).

No one is treated differently than anyone else.

This to me is demonstrative of true 'liberation','rule of person' and shows that PEOPLE can live in harmony IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO!

Forget ideology for a moment and look at it in terms of current usage and clarity.

 

[Chirimoya]

Outdated, archaic, unclear... isn't that enough?

Seems there are more Japanese soldiers out there than I thought - or maybe we could look at this as something akin to a civil war re-enactment weekend...

 

[Lambada]

Moving continents.................

.......from Japanese soldiers to Latin American developments on this subject


RIGHTS-LATIN AMERICA: Men Have Gender Issues, Too


LATIN AMERICA: Gender Stereotypes Still Firmly Entrenched, Despite Progress

 

[MommC]

Well the archaic definition of person is as follows...

Outdated, archaic, unclear... isn't that enough?

Seems there are more Japanese soldiers out there than I thought - or maybe we could look at this as something akin to a civil war re-enactment weekend...

a archaic : bodily appearance b: the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing

so the 'current' usage is individual human which is also the archaic definition of man....

It could then be said that the archaic definition of person has come into current usage by those persons who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes.

Suggestive of the sensitivities of those persons who didn't approve of being defined as the female gender of the species via the use of the word wif man (current usage-woman).

 

[Robert]

Maybe this will suffice since the boss is on the north coast and can't use his sock puppet detector to sniff out the truth....(of course that is a commodity that is increasingly rare on the board)

What part of no more BS posts didn't you understand?

I can be in Timbuktu and the sock puppet detector will sniff out socks and inform me and the mods.

Truth can in some circumstances be a rare commodity, resort reviews for instance. When you feed DR1 BS you get it back, haven't you worked that out yet?

We're done here....

 

[Chris]

Well, I hope Robert means that we can now go back on topic.

Rule of Law vs Rule of Person? Can we agree that Rule of Person is a little cumbersome? And can we redefine it as
Should Power be seated in Rule of Law or
Should Power be seated in Individual Rights?

Or something like that? What say you Johne?

 

[BushBaby]

I mean NO DISRESPECT to you MommC when I say this is not your normal style of writing. Is this a topic very close to your heart, one that you feel really passionate about & need to go to all the research you are presently doing ...... or are you being fed the lines from a source living not too far away from you? I preferred you in your previous posts ....... HONEST!! :cheeky: Grahame.

 

[johne]

I am most interested in

A great deal has been posted here in various forums that have led me to pose this question to the members.
Which do you think is more important to the DR (stability, growth, corruption, easing of poverty), The Rule of Law or the rule of the person? Then take it a step further and answer which is more important to you as an individual living the life as an ex-pat in the DR.

john

how the two (Rule of Law or rule of the person) impact people in the DR.More specifically, if a corrupt government makes The Rule of Law, how will the "laws" led to a greater, bigger, stabile, Dominican Republic?

Step two addressed to ex-pats: Many have said on this forum board they left/are leaving the U.S. or GB to live in a society with less Rule of Law.However, the examples they gave as to what part of
" less laws" is important to them , it does not add up to anything significant. Ex;Drinking a beer while driving. Drinking in public. Quasi legal prostitution.Running red lights.These are just not big deal issues (IMHO) to justify living
in what I consider a lawless country. Now that last statement may be a little over the top but I want to hear from people there,living the life in the DR , to give to this thread their ideas on this feeling of mine and the (2) questions I posed in the OP.
john

 

[MommC]

Actually BB.......it's like this.....

Edited by Robert.

Let's make this very simple MommC, because your not getting it.

Any more BS posts and consider yourself on vacation from DR1.
I don't care if you have 1 post or 10,000 posts, the rules apply to all.

Don't say you wasn't warned.... Enough!

 

[MommC]

John...this country has some of the best laws in the Western Hemisphere.....

how the two (Rule of Law or rule of the person) impact people in the DR.More specifically, if a corrupt government makes The Rule of Law, how will the "laws" led to a greater, bigger, stabile, Dominican Republic?

Step two addressed to ex-pats: Many have said on this forum board they left/are leaving the U.S. or GB to live in a society with less Rule of Law.However, the examples they gave as to what part of
" less laws" is important to them , it does not add up to anything significant. Ex;Drinking a beer while driving. Drinking in public. Quasi legal prostitution.Running red lights.These are just not big deal issues (IMHO) to justify living
in what I consider a lawless country. Now that last statement may be a little over the top but I want to hear from people there,living the life in the DR , to give to this thread their ideas on this feeling of mine and the (2) questions I posed in the OP.
john

The problem is that the system to administer and enforce those laws is so corrupt that it does not function and there is a general perception that indeed the country is 'lawless'.

This in turn leaves it up to the 'rule of the person' to provide whatever 'justice' is available in this country (i.e. vigilant justice).

 

[bob saunders]

You wouldn't need all those brackets if you rephrased it thus:

There is no 'sexism', 'racism' , just that innate inner sense that says all PEOPLE while maybe not 'equal' (depending on your concept of equality) are 'worthy' (read as having worth!).

No one is treated differently than anyone else.

This to me is demonstrative of true 'liberation','rule of person' and shows that PEOPLE can live in harmony IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO!

Forget ideology for a moment and look at it in terms of current usage and clarity.

I agree total with you on this Chiri that you can use gender neutral language and remain clear, but at the same time if a person doesn't and uses a style like CB did that has no intention, and clearly no intention, of maligning a gender or race, nobody should have a problem with that either.
Back on topic. While I am a strong believer in personal responsibility, my many years of experience in the Military have taught me that as strong as one person is a well functioning team is much stronger. The synergy that a focused team that can put their egos aside for the betterment of the team can truly accomplish miracles, however there needs to be a clear set of rules or guidelines. It's too bad we couldn't get politicians to put aside their egos, and greed, to work together for the betterment of their country. So I'm for strong personal responsibility(rule of the individual) but know that because we are part of a community(usually) we must have the rule of law otherwise we have anarchy.

 

[johne]

Bravo Bob

I agree total with you on this Chiri that you can use gender neutral language and remain clear, but at the same time if a person doesn't and uses a style like CB did that has no intention, and clearly no intention, of maligning a gender or race, nobody should have a problem with that either.
Back on topic. While I am a strong believer in personal responsibility, my many years of experience in the Military have taught me that as strong as one person is a well functioning team is much stronger. The synergy that a focused team that can put their egos aside for the betterment of the team can truly accomplish miracles, however there needs to be a clear set of rules or guidelines. It's too bad we couldn't get politicians to put aside their egos, and greed, to work together for the betterment of their country. So I'm for strong personal responsibility(rule of the individual) but know that because we are part of a community(usually) we must have the rule of law otherwise we have anarchy.

For what might be the first post on topic in a week.Let'e go forward from here. Thanks,
JOHN

 

[MommC]

Actually John there have been many posts on topic...

they just keep getting buried....however I do agree with the on topic portion of bob's post.......

The main problem with rules or guidelines is there must be a method to enforce them and as stated in my previous post, the system of enforcement must be free of corruption to function the way it is intended.

When a system is corrupt it doesn't function, so maybe we should be looking at how the rule of the person can 'correct' the rule of law if the system is corrupt!

 

[cobraboy]

Seems to me in a civil society governed by laws (even if not equally enforced), the "Rule of the Person" fills in the societal gaps where the "Rule of Law" doesn't apply.

For example, in this thread, (supposing the DR1 server is located in the DR; I don't know if it is or not, just sayin'..) there is no prevailing "Rule of Law" that I am aware of that forbids or enforces speech or words, either virtual or actual. So it's up to the "Rule of Person" of DR1 to decide what is acceptable language and what is not, and what the social sanctions should be for violations. And obviously, in that regard, opinions vary...

In some folks "Rules of Persons" statutes, non-PC usage of words is a serious offense. To others, it's not.

If Robert put forth in the "DR1 Rules" specific language that is required when members post vis a vis language, at the penalty of (fill in the blank) for violation, then HE has codified HIS set of "Rule of Person". And then folks have to fill in the cracks not specifically codified therein.

And so on...

Better?

 

[Lambada]

But if the server is in US, would that alter anything?

 

[cobraboy]

But if the server is in US, would that alter anything?

I'm not lawyer and could be wrong, but I understand the physical location of the server usually determines under what laws it's contents must abide.

But even then, the Rule of the Person fills in the virtual society's "law" cracks...

 

[johne]

I'm not lawyer and could be wrong, but I understand the physical location of the server usually determines under what laws it's contents must abide.

But even then, the Rule of the Person fills in the virtual society's "law" cracks...

CB-if I understand you correctly I would agree with you on your first paragraph but not on the second. Reason being-think of the example we used here several days ago- on- line gambling from a server in the U.S. is illegal. On-line gambling using my lap-top in a hotel room in SD using their server. Legal,right? Can't "fill in the virtual society's law cracks" when I return home to NY can I?
john

 

[Alyonka]

I don't know that much about the DR, but a lot of what I have seen there so far reminds me of this part from Faust:

Le veau d'or est vainqueur des dieux! The calf of gold is the victor over the gods!
Dans sa gloire d?risoire, In its derisory (absurde) glory,
Dans sa gloire d?risoire, In its derisory (absurde) glory,
Le monstre abject insulte aux cieux! The abject monster insults heaven!
Il contemple, ? rage ?trange! It contemplates, oh weird frenzy!
A ses pieds le genre humain, At his feet the human race,
Se ruant, le fer en main, Hurling itself about, iron in hand,
Dans le sang et dans la fange In blood and in the mire,
O? brille l'ardent m?tal, Where gleams the burning metal,
O? brille l'ardent m?tal, Where gleams the burning metal,
Et Satan conduit le bal,etc. And satan leads the dance,etc.

It looks like more of a rule of money and power to me aranoid:

 

[cobraboy]

CB-if I understand you correctly I would agree with you on your first paragraph but not on the second. Reason being-think of the example we used here several days ago- on- line gambling from a server in the U.S. is illegal. On-line gambling using my lap-top in a hotel room in SD using their server. Legal,right? Can't "fill in the virtual society's law cracks" when I return home to NY can I?
john

Heck if I know. Seems to be a lot of confusion on cyber law. I do know the location of the server would pertain to the owners of it; the legality of that gambling business is based on the physical location of the server. Where a customer is located prolly determines what laws he is obliged to follows. If online gambling is illegal in the DR, maybe you're breaking the law by gambling online when you and your computer in in the DR, regardless of where the server is located. I dunno...

Certainly, there is much gray area between the Rule of Law and the Rule of Person. From a societla perspective, the Rule of Law trumps the Rule of Person.

 

[Rocky]

Seems to be a lot of confusion on cyber law.

Agreed.

I do know the location of the server would pertain to the owners of it; the legality of that gambling business is based on the physical location of the server.

The main law that dictates that online gambling in the US is illegal, is the 1961 Wire act, made before the days of the internet.
The law does not dictate where a server is or where an owner is from or anything like that.
It just disallows online gambling money transfers in the US.

Where a customer is located prolly determines what laws he is obliged to follows.

Correct

If online gambling is illegal in the DR, maybe you're breaking the law by gambling online when you and your computer in in the DR, regardless of where the server is located. I dunno...

It is legal in the DR.