David B. Shemano wrote: > ... to only defend the "rule of law" when it coincides with what you agree > is not only hypocritical, but it also makes clear that you do not value the > "rule of law" at all (which I think is generally true of Leftists, who > generally believe that the "rule of law" is an obstacle to socialism). >
It's not the rule of law that leftists oppose. It's rule by bourgeois law; socialism will have a different legal system, though likely there would be a lot of overlap. The legal system mostly (90%?) reflects or meshes perfectly with the underlying power structure, i.e., the capitalist economic system. It also reflects the extent to which people have fought back against the powers that be. (The Bill of Rights was won in opposition to the financiers, merchants, and plantation-owners, the ruling elite of the day.) David writes: > I do value the "rule of law" and would hate to live in a society whether the > security of my person and property is at the mercy of those in power.< Those with sufficient property _are_ in power, setting the parameters within which the government operates. Of course, the government _can_ redistribute income or wealth to its friends (as Reagan's or G.W. Bush's administration did on a massive scale) or to itself. But if such policy conflicts with the underlying structure of capitalism, it causes a severe political crisis. The US has not seen one of these. -- Jim Devine / "If heart-aches were commercials, we'd all be on TV." -- John Prine _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
