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

[cobraboy]

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.

I don't know the exact details abut gambling, but I recall a recent set of laws or rulings by the D.C. Nanny Staters aimed at stopping innerweb gambling. I recall some Big Fish mucky muck got nailed in some U.S. airport on a bazillion charges. I don't know where it is within the "system". It may have been a show of force to all in that industry.

However, another innerweb sin, online "pron" ;-), I'm pretty sure most if not nearly all the naughty servers are offshore, far away from the long arms of Nanny Sam. In that case, where the servers live is definitely germaine to legal enforcement.

 

[johne]

I don't know the exact details abut gambling, but I recall a recent set of laws or rulings by the D.C. Nanny Staters aimed at stopping innerweb gambling. I recall some Big Fish mucky muck got nailed in some U.S. airport on a bazillion charges. I don't know where it is within the "system". It may have been a show of force to all in that industry.

However, another innerweb sin, online "pron" ;-), I'm pretty sure most if not nearly all the naughty servers are offshore, far away from the long arms of Nanny Sam. In that case, where the servers live is definitely germaine to legal enforcement.

And then one needs to define "porn". Hard core, soft, etc. Really don't know how this is done but I would suppose it is the level of graphic (penetration).I think that the operators of these sites have very savy legal concil and advisors to start with and then know exactly how to promote their sites

Rule of law--what people are "legally" allowed to view or ....what wants to view.

 

[cobraboy]

And then one needs to define "porn". Hard core, soft, etc. Really don't know how this is done but I would suppose it is the level of graphic (penetration).I think that the operators of these sites have very savy legal concil and advisors to start with and then know exactly how to promote their sites

Rule of law--what people are "legally" allowed to view or ....what wants to view.

How a prosecutor views the egree of legailty of "pron" depends on where he is. The DA in Memphis may take a totally different view from that of the DA in San Francisco.

But neither can do much about it if the server is in Barbados.

A person can view what he wants until a guy with a legally signed warrant and a gun knocks at the door.

Philosophically correct or not, the Rule of Law trumps the Rule of Person. I don't like or agree with it, but it is what it is.

Haven't there been a bunch of "pron" busts in the DR the last year or so?

 

[Lambada]

Philosophically correct or not, the Rule of Law trumps the Rule of Person. I don't like or agree with it, but it is what it is.

Haven't there been a bunch of "pron" busts in the DR the last year or so?

Yes there were and some of these were for using local children in those films, so I think they used it as documentary evidence that a child had been illegally treated rather than as an offence of viewing porn movies.

Back to your first sentence in the quote above - if I lived in a country whose rules were for example enshrined in Sharia law, then certain aspects of that would be morally reprehensible to me so the rule of the person, me, the individual, would be working against them while I figured out a way of leaving. No way would the Rule of Law be more important than my individual beliefs, in that instance.

Hasten to point out I wouldn't choose to live in a country dominated by Sharia law but one can always get stuck in places...........

 

[A.Hidalgo]

No way would the Rule of Law be more important than my individual beliefs, in that instance.

Oh goody back on track.....anyway I think the wording "the rule of the person" is a bit awkward. The bolded words are more accurate and descriptive to the topic on hand. That being said there are laws that downright stink and are used to subjugate and control the population, while the are others that are very sensible and for the good of all. The same can be said for individual beliefs. You can be someone working in a soup kitchen helping others or you can be a Ted Bundy or Jim Jone's and wreak havoc on people around you.

On a lighter note in the DR if an expat drives on a red light at 2:00 AM, does that mean they are a bad person? Or perhaps they are drinking a beer openly by the malecon enjoying the beautiful view. Don't think so....but there must much more of why they picked this place.

 

[johne]

Some food for thought to start the day-Re: Rules

"It's very good jam," said the Queen.
"Well, I don't want any today, at any rate."
"you couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam today."
"It must come sometimes to "jam today" Alice objected.
"No it can't," said the Queen. "it's jam every other day; today isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you'" said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing."

Through the Looking Glass.

Have a great "jam" day to all.
john

 

[cobraboy]

Oh goody back on track.....anyway I think the wording "the rule of the person" is a bit awkward. The bolded words are more accurate and descriptive to the topic on hand. That being said there are laws that downright stink and are used to subjugate and control the population, while the are others that are very sensible and for the good of all. The same can be said for individual beliefs. You can be someone working in a soup kitchen helping others or you can be a Ted Bundy or Jim Jone's and wreak havoc on people around you.

That's the rub.

One man's tyrrany is another man's "for the better good".

And both have strong "Law of Person" beliefs.

I suspect the more a person believs in his individual sovereignty, the less he agrees with the body of "Rule of Law".

The balance is between slavery and anarchy.

 

[Chirimoya]

The balance is between a totalitarian set of rules, backed by oppressive measures - and a complete free-for-all where the fittest survive and the weakest sink.

The question is where we want to be along the line between those two.

I think Haiti is pretty close to the latter, and the Dominican Republic is somewhere in that region too. The Scandinavian model of social democracy/mixed economy would be about half way along the line, with most of Europe and North America to one side. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and co would be at the other extreme. Note that this does not really follow the old left/centre/right scheme.

In countries like the DR there are laws for everything, some of them surprisingly strict, but they are not enforced consistently. From environmental laws prohibiting animal cruelty which read literally would outlaw cockfighting, to the draconian abortion laws, right down to traffic rules. These will be enforced depending on who you are, how powerful you are or how much money you have.

That's why one of the main aims of international aid to the DR is "institution building" and what civil society organisations like Participaci?n Ciudadana and Finjus (Institutionalism and Justice Foundation) were set up for - they perceive the state to be far too weak, and advocate stronger institutions, which would be able to enforce those laws.

I realise that this is not so much about the actual quality/fairness/validity of these laws, but it is connected.

 

[johne]

In countries like the DR there are laws for everything, some of them surprisingly strict, but they are not enforced consistently. From environmental laws prohibiting animal cruelty which read literally would outlaw cockfighting, to the draconian abortion laws, right down to traffic rules. These will be enforced depending on who you are, how powerful you are or how much money you have.

That's why one of the main aims of international aid to the DR is "institution building" and what civil society organisations like Participaci?n Ciudadana and Finjus (Institutionalism and Justice Foundation) were set up for - they perceive the state to be far too weak, and advocate stronger institutions, which would be able to enforce those laws.

Chiri-I have used the words"a country without laws (DR)" several times in posting on this board. Would you describe a country that does not "enforce" the law to be a country "without" laws. Or, is my definition and view too harsh?

 

[bob saunders]

A large part of the problem is that many because of their individual beliefs starts to believe that they have a right to do what they want, but then aren't willing to accept the consequences of their act. Freedom without responsibility results in stepping on the rights of some other individual or affecting somebody or something negatively. It is indeed a balancing act that can never be reached to the satisfaction of all.

 

[A.Hidalgo]

I suspect the more a person believs in his individual sovereignty, the less he agrees with the body of "Rule of Law".

The balance is between slavery and anarchy.

Individual sovereignty can be a beautiful and worthy goal, but no one lives in a vacuum or a bubble. As long as a person interacts with other folks, your sovereignty will be affected and the need for modification and accommodation becomes necessary.

Seems to me that under a functioning democracy (utopia?) rules of the law have a better opportunity of flowing seamlessly to individual ideas (rule of the person).

 

[Chirimoya]

Chiri-I have used the words"a country without laws (DR)" several times in posting on this board. Would you describe a country that does not "enforce" the law to be a country "without" laws. Or, is my definition and view too harsh?

They are there in theory, but not in practice. So in effect, the country is lawless.

I forgot to mention theocracies in my previous post, continuing from Lambada's mention of Sharia: they would also go somewhere near the totalitarian end of the scale, as a classic example of a set of rules infringing individual freedoms, even though they have freer economies.

 

[AC/DC]

We have seen numerous times what happens when...

individual sovereignty trapples bothe the rule of (existing) law and rule of person......ie. Castro,Trujillio,Baby Doc.

Then the rule of law becomes the rule of the individual sovereign person:ninja:

 

[AC/DC]

"tramples"

 

[cobraboy]

Individual sovereignty can be a beautiful and worthy goal, but no one lives in a vacuum or a bubble. As long as a person interacts with other folks, your sovereignty will be affected and the need for modification and accommodation becomes necessary.

Seems to me that under a functioning democracy (utopia?) rules of the law have a better opportunity of flowing seamlessly to individual ideas (rule of the person).

Of course. I'm certainly no Utopian, except in the confines of my humble abode.

The proper balance is what is necessary. The conflict arises when one group of people want to take the rights (Rule of Person) of others away from them. In a totalitarian gubmint, the problem is resolved by removing the dissenters from the equation.

The key is sovereign people/individuals constantly challenging the gubmints "right" to encroach on individual sovereignty through the "Rule of Law"...which is ALWAYS ultimately forced upon it's minions by the "Rule of Large Guns".

 

[cobraboy]

Freedom without responsibility results in stepping on the rights of some other individual or affecting somebody or something negatively.

Which, coming full circle, comes back to the "unreasonableness" of men. If men were reasonable and accepted personal responsibility for their actions (which, fundamentally, would include never initiating force against other men), there would be little need for Rule of Law.

Oddly enough, about the only group of folks who seem to be able to behave in such a fashion would be the Amish and Mennonites in PA and a few other small enclaves. Thay actually seem to be able to organize and govern themselves in a most "reasonable" individual and collective manner. But in their case, they submit their "Rule of Person" to the "Rule of Their God", without challenging, to a large extent, the local "Rule of Law".

I respect them greatly for their actions in that regard.

 

[Lambada]

The key is sovereign people/individuals constantly challenging the gubmints "right" to encroach on individual sovereignty through the "Rule of Law"...which is ALWAYS ultimately forced upon it's minions by the "Rule of Large Guns".

And that constant challenge is happening less & less frequently, in my view. Particularly in 'developed' western democracies where inhabitants have had far more of the advantages like education with which to inform and progress such challenges.

In many respects, this is the hopeful thing about the DR. Those challenges to government's 'right' to encroach on individual sovereignty are there - they may not be effectively carried out, they may lack organisational & planning skills etc but the will to challenge is there. When I visited UK last year the only people I saw with the real will to challenge, was a bunch of old age pensioners & they were taking their challenge to the courts.

What I find a really optimistic sign here is something I referred to on the This is Incredible thread: that the challenges are now coming from educated Dominicans as well as the tyre burning folks e.g. the campaign mounted by Mujer y Salud on behalf of the child gang rape victim, and the Tavera 'voluntary' enquiry into the disaster. It might have taken a couple of generations but I think some people here are beginning to throw off the mental shackles of the Trujillo legacy. And I happen to think that's great!

 

[A.Hidalgo]

It might have taken a couple of generations but I think some people here are beginning to throw off the mental shackles of the Trujillo legacy. And I happen to think that's great!

Agree. Those bits of activism are a sure optimistic sign of an awakening populace, and once the momentum is initiated there is no turning back. Bravo.

 

[Chris]

But what does the 'awakening populace' have to base their future decisions and actions on? What forces will shape their actions? Where is there a culture that is sustainable that they can learn from? Are they going to build future structure on the basis of a Ghandi, or are they going to learn from their own collective conscious and use a [SIZE=-1]Truillo[/SIZE] as role model?

The collective with lots of personal space as in a Ghandi or the Might of the Individual of a Truillo? Where will the awakening momentum carry the population to?

 

[MommC]

Note also the recent huelga/protest in Guayacanes....

The people of the town successfully 'stopped' the illegal destruction of homes that were under construction (now whether those homes are 'legal' or not remains unclear) by the policia who were acting not under the 'rule of law' but in return for monetary compensation (assumed) by persons using the 'rule of person'.

So some small successes are being realized.:bunny: