Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Owlspiracy
Nov 4, 2020


hello this is a thread for esoteric conversations about political philosophy, the rule of law, political theory and other things disconnected from reality!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Epinephrine
Nov 7, 2008
What is reality, really? And if we don't know what reality is, how are we to know what is connected to it or not?

Owlspiracy
Nov 4, 2020


here's a few posts i made as part of a derail about the rule of law

Owlspiracy posted:

people are talking about the rule of law and you're talking about the categorical imperative. the rule of law doesn't preclude doing bad things (just make them legal), but respecting the rule of law is a fundamental principle of modern liberal democracies. that's distinct from the idea that laws themselves should be created in order to act morally (in part because the concept of universal moral laws no longer is particularly accepted, but thats neither here nor there)

i'm highlighting this because this breakdown happens over and over in your posts: the idea that because something is right it doesn't matter if its legal or illegal - that moral righteousness trumps the rule of law, period, forever. there's two problems with that approach: one - more abstractly - is that is antithetical to the premise of a functioning modern democratic state (which is premised on the state respecting the rule of law, particularly rights granted to individuals) and, two - more practically - what you think is moral and correct is not what someone else thinks is moral and correct, and when you've legitimized subverting the rule of law in favor of acting based on principle, then you open the door for your opponents to the do the same.

we've had this conversation a hundred different times and you seem to struggle with this. if it helps there have been literally millions of words written on this and i am happy to direct you to some much smarter people who have written much more extensively about this. but at some point you have to stop replying to all these types of issues with 'well just do the right thing, the law doesn't matter!' and then getting perplexed when people point out that yea, the rule of law actually is important.

edit: fwiw i'll add this cavaet: i think 'respecting the rule of law' does not necessarily mean 'obligated to defend objectionable laws in court because they happened to be passed by the opposite party', but i do strongly disagree that the democrats should start doing illegal things because they feel justified, because if you want to go down that road you need to ensure your opponents are never in power, ever again, because that bell is not going to be unrung and if you're unwilling go all the way your republican opponents absolutely are

(i know you've said before you don't agree with kant but your posts which are full of extremely rigid thinking characterized by moral absolutes 100% read as recognizably kantian to anyone who's taking political philosophy, which is very lol)

Owlspiracy posted:

except this isn't true. the problem isn't states "not respecting the rule of law" its "the existing laws enable people to do immoral things under the umbrella of tenuous legality." like, the entire reason the CIA operated torture black sites overseas is because they were able to do so "legally". the entire issue with police shootings is that they are seen as legal and justified. if every police office who murdered someone was suddenly convicted and thrown in jail (which would be good!) then i can promise you police shootings would substantially decrease - which is why one of the proposed reforms is get rid of qualified immunity, which is why this doesn't happen.

the real issue you've identified is that laws in the united states don't serve individuals because they do thinks like legalize police murdering people. in a liberal democracy the solution to that is to pass new laws not ignore the rule of law. if you think you cannot solve these problems through legislation, then what you're really discussing is "how do we replace the existing system with something else", which is a separate conversation, and: see my previous post about half-measures.

no, what i'm saying is that choosing not to defend a law you don't support isn't subverting the rule of law

Owlspiracy posted:

also just to add if you legitimately think that we're at a crisis point where the ends justify the means - where the democrats should ignore the rule of law to pursue their agenda because their agenda is morally correct and would benefit millions and if they fail to do so now they will never get another chance - then you should not be arguing for meaningless half-measures, you should be arguing for things like 'suspending elections', 'outlawing the republican party' and 'seizing bezos' wealth'. because once the rule of law is gone, it's gone.

Grouchio
Aug 31, 2014

Growing up I was always a bigger fan of constitutional enlightened monarchies than democracies.

So this is awkward.

Raenir Salazar
Nov 5, 2010

College Slice
With all the chaos of our times the more I think it's actually not so much a bad idea to have a monarchy, even better if its a matriarchy. There's of course a whole series of more scifi circumstances I would prefer; such as some sort of Kwisatz Haderach or sufficiently powerful AI; or extraterrestrial alien beings masquerading as gods, anything at this point to put an end to chaos and to decisively solve our existential crisis. But even a more boring "street urchin claiming visions of god declaring themselves the World Sovereign" where everyone inexplicibly bent the knee and were like "Yup this is legit" would be tempting at this point.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DrSunshine
Mar 23, 2009

Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Raenir Salazar posted:

With all the chaos of our times the more I think it's actually not so much a bad idea to have a monarchy, even better if its a matriarchy. There's of course a whole series of more scifi circumstances I would prefer; such as some sort of Kwisatz Haderach or sufficiently powerful AI; or extraterrestrial alien beings masquerading as gods, anything at this point to put an end to chaos and to decisively solve our existential crisis. But even a more boring "street urchin claiming visions of god declaring themselves the World Sovereign" where everyone inexplicibly bent the knee and were like "Yup this is legit" would be tempting at this point.

Political Philosophy, Theory and Discourse: We Stan The God-Emperor of Mankind

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply