Imo post 1946 US foreign policy, while immoral at times and 95% self-serving, still utilizes a form of military *offense* that is more efficient & moral than any other historical great power. #1 driver of this is Rule of Law as sovereign vs autocratic leader as sovereign.
-
-
Replying to @atlasontilt @jarurik and
You are living in a society in the late stages of a complete collapse of rule of law into pure who/whom and don't even see it or can't acknowledge it.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @jarurik and
It seems much that way to the reactionaries and I see their argument. Read plenty of Moldbug too. I just think at end of the day, in US system the Rule of Law > Leader and that is a system I’d prefer (and I think 70%+ of the world prefers) vs the Chinese alternative
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @atlasontilt @jarurik and
Disagree strongly the idea that "rule of law" is even possible ("laws" don't rule - men do) but even the fiction of "rule of law" is dead after a century of
#manipulatingProceduralOutcomes Arguing its virtues is like talking about the benefits of true Communism1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @jarurik and
We just saw it work with Trump. Biggest would-be autocrat potus in 100+ yrs and the institutions held ground. Eg Imagine Trump/Comey ‘Go easy on Flynn’ dinner in China. Would CCP-Comey say ‘no’ to Xi the way Comey did to Trump? Rule of Law allows Comey to feel safe defying Trump.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atlasontilt @jarurik and
You're joking right? You're holding up Flynn's treatment as an example of "rule of law"?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @jarurik and
No I’m pointing out that CCP version of Comey would be terrified to defy Xi. As would every single CCP bureaucrat. Is that incorrect? Is it also incorrect that an FBI director in america has the ability to defy POTUS without fear of direct personal harm?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atlasontilt @jarurik and
Yes, the FBI director and any Cathedral functionary is free to disobey his legal boss as long as his legal boss isn't Cathedral approved. Thinking this is somehow proof of "rule of law" is insane.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @jarurik and
1)Only when that boss is clearly acting unethically as defined by law. 2)we’re talking about structure of sovereign rule, not policy disagreement. U dislike cathedral bc u dislike it’s policy. But it’s folly to prefer an autocrat-don’t u realize you just built a cathedral of one?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @atlasontilt @jarurik and
>Only when that boss is clearly acting unethically as defined by law Again, this is a joke since who is "acting unethically as defined by law" is defined by ... the functionaries who can fake evidence and face no consequences - after all, they don't answer to anyone, do they?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
As far as "a Cathedral of one" being just as bad - the entire point is that an oligarchy is a horrific way to run a government because it divorces responsibility and power. Everyone is a cog, no one responsible. It's a formula for bad governance and injustice.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.