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

[johne]

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

 

[Lambada]

The day that the masses have had enough of being exploited & decide to do something about it will not be a comfortable time for me personally (or probably for any expat) but my heart will be with them. I just wish we could get more equitable wealth distribution without violence but I have my doubts. Is this what you meant?

 

[cobraboy]

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.

 

[johne]

Better luck next time-Sorry for the confusion

Sometime when I have a bit more time I am going to re-introduce this thread or make it part of a response in a posting. I can see, judging from the number of responses I am really not getting my question across properly. My fault. The next time I think I'll post the definitions first then ask the question.
Sorry,
JOHN

 

[Chris]

johne, I really don't want you to be dissappointed, so, here it is for me ..

The mountains, the forest, the ocean, the water and the people are ultimately inseparable! I've never subscribed to the 'rule of law'. When life is lived in harmony, the rule of law may be almost non-existent. No, I'm not talking utopia, I'm talking common sense and balanced living.

 

[johne]

johne, I really don't want you to be dissappointed, so, here it is for me ..

The mountains, the forest, the ocean, the water and the people are ultimately inseparable! I've never subscribed to the 'rule of law'. When life is lived in harmony, the rule of law may be almost non-existent. No, I'm not talking utopia, I'm talking common sense and balanced living.

Chris--No, I am not disappointed-don't get me wrong--I really don't think I positioned the question right (or at the right time and place)
Thanks for your response--I'll try it at another more appropriate occasion
JOHN

 

[sollie]

Chris--No, I am not disappointed-don't get me wrong--I really don't think I positioned the question right (or at the right time and place)
Thanks for your response--I'll try it at another more appropriate occasion
JOHN

John,

The time and place were fine but your question needs a bit of tweaking/clarification. The premise was interesting and I almost asked for clarification when I first read it, so please, break it down concisely. I'm sure there is a good discussion there.

Sollie

 

[johne]

John,

The time and place were fine but your question needs a bit of tweaking/clarification. The premise was interesting and I almost asked for clarification when I first read it, so please, break it down concisely. I'm sure there is a good discussion there.

Sollie

Thanks Sollie. That's what I meant about when I have a bit more time-will clarify.

 

[juanj]

The Rule of Law or the rule of the person?

By any of the infinite approaches and definitions plausible, there would remain constant: who would create a given "rule of law"; as well as who the "person" might be. Seems to avoid direct answer doesnt it? True. And there are many "flavors" to interpretations and theories on the question (some "clasic": philosophical/theological, for example, etc.).

However, given my experience in the DR (and other places) - whatever paradigm or ethos is employed to answer: "Which do you think is more important to the DR", we would be left with more unanswered questions when we put to practice what we articulate as being "more important" - that is simply due to our very natures! And since the HUMAN ELEMENT (to copy a phrase) must be a given/foundation to any premise of "bahavior/law/value", etc , then requisite to applying "rule of law" vs. "person", we must realize the delimma will always be consistent enforcement.

So, I would chose "Rule of Law". I would chose that fully-well knowing that with human nature, there can never be any panacean application to those types of fundamental questions; but I would chose that with the confidence of uniform application.

Of course, the pandoras box question is: who would then create the laws that become "the rule of law"?

 

[cobraboy]

johne, I really don't want you to be dissappointed, so, here it is for me ..

The mountains, the forest, the ocean, the water and the people are ultimately inseparable! I've never subscribed to the 'rule of law'. When life is lived in harmony, the rule of law may be almost non-existent. No, I'm not talking utopia, I'm talking common sense and balanced living.

Where is this? I wanna move there.

Unfortunately, prisons are full of folks who don't believe in the Rule of Law, too...

 

[Chris]

Where is this? I wanna move there.

Unfortunately, prisons are full of folks who don't believe in the Rule of Law, too...

Believe and subscribe to are two different things .. geez! If one is a responsible sovereign individual, the law falls into place but certainly one does not have to 'ruled' by it? I would like to think that if i'm ruled by anything, it could be stuff like ethics or responsibility. The law is an ass you know!

No, its not a place, it is a state of mind.

 

[cobraboy]

I would like to think that if i'm ruled by anything, it could be stuff like ethics or responsibility.

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

 

[juanj]

true: could be a state of mind. Questions: Are all "states" of minds equal? are they all just? are they all balanced? do states of minds follow rules? must states of minds follow rules? who creates the rules for states of minds? - ethics/conscience/morals/truth/justice - what ingredients mus be steeped placed in the crucible that is "society" in order to reach some sort of collective "good" state of mind?
True, mine are but words, and the ideas may not be well articulated, but experience (that we all have) makes us know deeply within ourselves that these foundamental questions musy be explored - even to reach a quasi euphoric utopia - and given our basic lifespans, that is all we are really promised.

 

[Chris]

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

A few of us though are a little dumber than that. Our intellect first comes from values. The value may be 'to thine own self be true', or the value may be 'kill or be killed' ... then intellect follows to do or not to do the thing. No, it is not a 'heart' ruling the 'head', it rather is a 'heart' and 'head' working in concert each doing the thing that it is good at. As I said, a state of mind rather than a place. The ability to be fluid in life, rather than to be stuck with what makes sense to the head. There is a place for intuition - combined intellect, intuition is a very strong force.

Truly, if anyone is interested .. the following is life philosophy for me .. "Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field; I'll meet you there." Rumi.

Not war, but very passionate and very intelligent peace building. One can but strive!

 

[GringoCArlos]

I too believe in personal sovereignty and not a bunch of knee-jerk Rules and more laws. If everyone lived by the Golden Rule, the world would be a much happier place, and there would be no need for other "Laws" (which the sheep believe is for "the greater good".... )

Unfortunately, there are always some a**holes that think they are better than this, or smarter than this, or whatever, which brought on the added "he who has the gold rules" as a reaction.

Give me anarchy before 10,000 pages of laws and a governing body consisting of nothing but lawyers, any day.

 

[cobraboy]

I too believe in personal sovereignty and not a bunch of knee-jerk Rules and more laws. If everyone lived by the Golden Rule, the world would be a much happier place, and there would be no need for other "Laws" (which the sheep believe is for "the greater good".... )

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?

 

[johne]

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?

No, but then we are faced with a bigger problem. What/who is resonable vs. what/who is unreasonable?
john

 

[cobraboy]

No, but then we are faced with a bigger problem. What/who is resonable vs. what/who is unreasonable?
john

Let me make the rules! :cheeky:

I hear ya'.

I suppose one measure of a "reasonable man" would be one who never initiates any force whatsoever against another man. "Force" is not limited to just the physical, i.e. fraud, among other non-physical acts, would be "force".

 

[A.Hidalgo]

If everyone lived by the Golden Rule, the world would be a much happier place, and there would be no need for other "Laws" (which the sheep believe is for "the greater good".... )

That If says it all. I think its a human condition thing. Why do you think religions were created for....unfortunately we need those bothersome laws.

 

[johne]

THAT'S THE WAY to stop foreclosures!

Let me make the rules! :cheeky:

I hear ya'.

I suppose one measure of a "reasonable man" would be one who never initiates any force whatsoever against another man. "Force" is not limited to just the physical, i.e. fraud, among other non-physical acts, would be "force".

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.