IMO it is not the ratcheting or inertia in technical legal thinking that bothers me, it is that ultimately decisions still fall into the hands of a small elite, albeit a different one. If no one believed that judges can steer society to the left or the right -- there would not be fights between the legislative and executive branches over supreme court nominees for non-technical reasons. The law is also an elaborate tool for controlling (and helping) people, and unfortunately often one that can only be wielded by those with vast resources. Trade a pope for a supreme court justice for a Nobel Laureate at some level it is all the same. Everyone has a price. defining `price’ broadly. Sure I’ll pull from the right on that list if push comes to shove. But I’d also say authoritarian leaders, or those that like people like them, want some agility in their authoritarianism. They want to see the exercise of Power; they don’t want to be bogged down in procedure. Get those leaders and the led together and sometimes they’ll get behind some strange rituals.
From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of gepr Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Here's to the 1%! It seems to me that authoritarianism can be fostered without an organismic authority (like a king or priest class). Isn't the "rule of law" or a constitution intended to objectify the authority? If that's the case, then the psychological manipulation from things like religion or capital punishment can/could eventually become unnecessary to achieve an authoritarian state.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
