Rule of law does not mean a mafia can not exist. Nor does it prevent racist groups from forming. The creation of the FBI in response to organized crime is a great example of the Rule of Law that has existed in this country since before it's founding. As organized crime started subverting authority, by specializing in crime and sharing the profits, the government realized that to apply the law evenly and just, it had to devote special resources and change laws in an open and free manner in order to combat them.

No one is arguing that America was completely free with slavery bro. It was abhorrent and against the ideals this country was founded upon. We all agree on this. To those that were enslaved, obviously we were not a free country. But to those who were citizens. We were.

A large segment of the population had always been free and enjoyed the right to vote. And thanks to freedom of speech, these rights have been expanded and given to all citizens, men, women, blacks and Latinos.

And while the government's collection of our private data is certainly a violation of our right to privacy. We still live in a free society. We are not persecuted in mass for what we say. We are not imprisoned without trial nor has out right to counsel been taken away.

There will always be a struggle to maintain Rule of Law and we must always be vigilant to leaders who would wish to take it away piece by piece but you are talking out of your ass saying this country is not governed by rule of law. By your measurement, almost no country on the planet could be said to be governed by rule of law.

There are many places in the world that do not have natural resources and are still successful. (Hong Kong, Monaco, Monte Carlo)

There are places in the world that do not have a strong work ethic. (Italy, Spain, France)

There are places in he world that do not have an influx of immigrants. (Some Caribbean islands)

People generally emigrate to countries because A) Freedom and B) Economic Growth. Immigration to a country alone will not increase economic growth. It's GDP may increase, but it does necessarily mean there will be economic development which is a whole different thing.

This country enjoyed economic growth and economic development long before we had a giant welfare state.

And there are many countries that have natural resources and are still dirt poor or decreasing in wealth. (Sierra Leone, Venezuela, for example)

The reason we have a strong work ethic is because people know they can come to this country and that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. (Enforcement of private property rights and rule of law).

Name any example of any economically developed country or state in the world and I would be willing to bet they have this in common. They are usually free societies that have a representative democracy but that is not necessarily a condition that must be met. Totalitarian states can also protect private property and enforce rule of law for the most part but usually they do not. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and China are good examples of totalitarian states that do.

There have also been numerous examples of countries enjoying both growth and development which have had class barriers. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome just off the top of my head.

Again I think you're completely missing the point. I'm not saying jobs disappearing is such a bad thing. Ultimately I think it will be a very good thing for humanity.

I'm just saying our current toxic political climate – instead of acknowledging the fact, I see mostly right wing politicians vilifying the people who can't get jobs which no longer exist anymore.

I'm also not saying smart robots that can do most manual labor jobs is right around the corner. But it's coming at some point.

Most of our wealth in this country has sprung up since the Depression – which happens to coincide with the rise of the welfare state. How do you know that the stability provided by that didn't have a big impact on economic growth? Look at Germany and Scandinavia – their economies weathered the Euro crisis better than most.

I'm not arguing about the things you listed having an effect on the rise of US wealth. I think you're just selectively leaving out anything that doesn't align with your political philosophy. Name a wealthy democracy that doesn't have a strong social safety net.

Monaco and Monte Carlo are essentially the same place btw.

Deuces deucing up the LC thread it's a new 9/11 tragedy in hurrrrr imo.

US had the Oil in the first part of the 20th century.

In 1945, the rest of the world was in shambles and we were firing on all cylinders. Utter domination for the next few decades was inevitable.

I thought Obama's speech was good. Plenty challenges ahead but he should get the support he needs domestically with that case.

I leave for like a month, and PVN and Fly are suddenly on the same page.

I think we can close the forum guys. Politics is solved.

I think pvn had the aha moment where he realized he wouldn't mind being paid a living wage so sit around the house and banter on the internet all day. Suddenly government works.

'Tis pretty astounding how the anti-statist "TAXES ARE THEFT!" guy came out in favor of the largest statist redistribution scheme ever.

UBI could be the current value of social welfare programs without strings, right?

* it's probably smaller than current redistribution schemes (requires much less bureaucracy)

* definitely less authoritarian (though you'll get the OMG REDBULLLLLLL whiners)

* of course guys like trolly are more interested in OMG FLIP FLOPPER games than actually discussing issues, nothing new under the sun.

I don't know what you mean by before it's founding. Recent findings are that the first settlements were plagued with factious, murderous in-fighting. But maybe you're not going that far back lol.

But yeah you're right, the creation of the FBI in response was the rule of law in action. However, the scope and duration of a successful assault of the rule of law bears on the integrity of the state of the rule of law. In other words rule of law is a matter of degree, not a binary state. If the U.S. had existed for most of it's life under the historical height of mob influence (or hypothetically worse, say), it would be difficult to justify saying it holds to the rule of law. Such was not the case, but there are many other assaults to the rule of law to consider. These combine for a cumulative effect.

And the KKK was more than a racist group. They were a political terrorist organization whose ranks were swelled with law makers and law enforcement. Because they successfully operated at that level they definitely compromised the rule of law, breaking it from above with a vast and efficient reach.

Racist attitudes in a vacuum are not evidence of compromise of the rule of law. But what was the legal cover for the internment of Japanese American citizens in '42? What about their fundamental rights supposedly protected in the constitution? You don't have to be a legal scholar to know that the internment was nothing but an episode of lawless mob rule.

More recently, Tom Delay (as house majority leader) and Jack Abramoff ran a virtual legislative protection racket, involving many members of congress. Only one lawmaker went down in the aftermath, and a few lobbyist and staffers. Is that the rule of law in action?

Major fraud was undertaken by the financial sector, virtually as a group, bringing the world financial system to it's knees. Has anyone of stature gone to jail? Has anyone been prosecuted? Or has the Attorney General, previously a Wall Street lawyer who represented that same criminal constituency as their lawyer, sat around and made deals, negotiating how much of the stolen money they should give back? Rule of law in action?

Documents have now been released which show that the government has used the (once) secret surveillance system to spy for the benefit of U.S. corporations against foreign competition. I know if I was one of the corporations not given that benefit I would be mighty pissed. This is to say nothing of the implications for international law and the U.S. respecting the rule of law in foreign affairs.

Does the creation and implementation of trade agreements pass your rule-of-law smell test? They don't pass mine because they have zero transparency in their negotiation yet have massive impact on the populations of the participating countries.


McCarthyism was exactly being persecuted for what we say. And for a more recent example, the collection of our private data has been used to target lawful dissidents. Americans have been assassinated abroad with no trial or due process. That can't be news to you. You must think it's just trivial. Civil rights groups don't.

I'm not talking out of my ass. I am giving you numerous examples of major compromises of the rule of law which have had deep and long lasting impacts. You might write them off as episodic but they are continual in aggregate.

If you want some more substantial and built-in structural sources of compromise to the rule of law consider the influence of corporations. What are your thoughts on oligarchy and the rule of law? Corporations are concentrations of private power with a top down command structure who now have rights similar to and, in some instances in excess of, citizens. That's fine because those are the rules we have chosen. But what is happening when these private tyrannies enter into corruption or undue, non-transparent influence with or of politicians through illegal OR legal actions? In my view this is the major source of compromise of the rule of law today.

Increasingly, right wing libertarians feel the same way. I was surprised to find out that the whole "crony capitalism" meme had a libertarian origin. Libertarians are making alarmist appeals to the rule of law as one of their major (if not the major) lines of attack.

Only relative to many other countries has the U.S. done well wrt to maintaining the rule of law. So like you won't see some major legal U.S. export controlled by drug cartels, as are limes in Mexico. Bravo. But why settle for being less corrupt than Mexico? Don't wax nostalgic on a revisionist fantasy of rule of law when we are up to our necks in corruption and dealing with a major assault against our basic rights.

The private data thing would be a bigger deal if the data was being used in an abusive manner. You mentioned "lawful dissidents being targeted," What is that story?

This has absolutely happened. First thing of the top of my head is that NSA employees used their abilities to spy on love interests.

James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA stuff (felony) and isn't being prosecuted. Where is the rule of law there? Where is it when we're told to "look forwards, not backwards" at people who oversaw illegal torturing at Guantanamo? The history of the "rule of law" in the United States is that it is applied extremely unevenly, and in all cases used for the benefit of those in power.

I wonder how much NSA-scooped data was involved in the Patraeus/Broadwell/Kelley thing. At the time it occured, we didn't know about Snowden, but we did find out that Kelley had sweettalked FBI friends into digging up at least some of the dirt on Patraeus, they almost certainly used some of these programs, right?

Sorry, bro, but it's worth pointing out that your years of "TAXATION IS THEFT AT GUNPOINT" was total bull****. You don't get to completely switch sides without owing us some kind of explanation.

it still is? denying what's going on isn't really helpful. As long as we're going to have it, though, it might as well be put to a good use, better than bailing out banks, dropping bombs, etc.

I don't see this as "completely switching sides" though it doesn't surprise me that you do.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...l#post43410814

UBI is obviously more libertarian that a huge network of bureaucracy-laden welfare programs, each with their own layers of red tap, means testing, nitpicking over what qualifies as a covered expense, etc. Even in the worst case where the absolute size of the program in dollars is the same, more of that money is actually helping people and less of it is getting stuck in an overhead blackhole. In what way is favoring a more effecient, more humane, less authoritarian plan "completely switching sides"???

Pennsylvania teen faces possible two year prison term for simulated sex with a statue of Jesus

Glenn Greenwald highlighted today an article written by Hunter S. Thompson on 9/12/01:

Pretty smart guy.

Well you know when you do that kind of thing in Mississippi you're taking a ris


Wait, Pennsylvania!?

I think it's the duty of anyone who lives near there to go do the exact same thing.

On second thought, I imagine absolutely nobody lives near there.

That's pretty deep in Pennsyltucky.