"The Myth of the Rule of Law"

[BigBallinStalin]

I've been reading some interesting stuff about the rule of law, and seeing some interesting connections between the following paper and the "how and why" on the behavior of the Supreme Court Justices.

People are more willing to support the exercise of authority over themselves when they believe it to be an objective, neutral feature of the natural world. This was the idea behind the concept of the divine right of kings. By making the king appear to be an integral part of God's plan for the world rather than an ordinary human being dominating his fellows by brute force, the public could be more easily persuaded to bow to his authority. However, when the doctrine of divine right became discredited, a replacement was needed to ensure that the public did not view political authority as merely the exercise of naked power. That replacement is the concept of the rule of law.

People who believe they live under "a government of laws and not people" tend to view their nation's legal system as objective and impartial. They tend to see the rules under which they must live not as expressions of human will, but as embodiments of neutral principles of justice, i.e., as natural features of the social world. Once they believe that they are being commanded by an impersonal law rather than other human beings, they view their obedience to political authority as a public-spirited acceptance of the requirements of social life rather than mere acquiescence to superior power. In this way, the concept of the rule of law functions much like the use of the passive voice by the politician who describes a delict on his or her part with the assertion "mistakes were made." It allows people to hide the agency of power behind a facade of words; to believe that it is the law which compels their compliance, not self-aggrandizing politicians, or highly capitalized special interests, or wealthy white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males, or _______________ (fill in your favorite culprit).

But the myth of the rule of law does more than render the people submissive to state authority; it also turns them into the state's accomplices in the exercise of its power. For people who would ordinarily consider it a great evil to deprive individuals of their rights or oppress politically powerless minority groups will respond with patriotic fervor when these same actions are described as upholding the rule of law.

Consider the situation in India toward the end of British colonial rule. At that time, the followers of Mohandas Gandhi engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience by manufacturing salt for their own use in contravention of the British monopoly on such manufacture. The British administration and army responded with mass imprisonments and shocking brutality. It is difficult to understand this behavior on the part of the highly moralistic, ever-so-civilized British unless one keeps in mind that they were able to view their activities not as violently repressing the indigenous population, but as upholding the rule of law.

The same is true of the violence directed against the nonviolent civil rights protestors in the American South during the civil rights movement. Although much of the white population of the southern states held racist beliefs, one cannot account for the overwhelming support given to the violent repression of these protests on the assumption that the vast majority of the white Southerners were sadistic racists devoid of moral sensibilities. The true explanation is that most of these people were able to view themselves not as perpetuating racial oppression and injustice, but as upholding the rule of law against criminals and outside agitators. Similarly, since despite the . 60s rhetoric, all police officers are not "fascist pigs," some other explanation is needed for their willingness to participate in the "police riot" at the 1968 Democratic convention, or the campaign of illegal arrests and civil rights violations against those demonstrating in Washington against President Nixon's policies in Vietnam, or the effort to infiltrate and destroy the sanctuary movement that sheltered refugees from Salvadorian death squads during the Reagan era or, for that matter, the attack on and destruction of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. It is only when these officers have fully bought into the myth that "we are a government of laws and not people," when they truly believe that their actions are commanded by some impersonal body of just rules, that they can fail to see that they are the agency used by those in power to oppress others.

The reason why the myth of the rule of law has survived for 100 years despite the knowledge of its falsity is that it is too valuable a tool to relinquish. The myth of impersonal government is simply the most effective means of social control available to the state.

During the past two decades, the legal scholars identified with the Critical Legal Studies movement have gained a great deal of notoriety for their unrelenting attacks on traditional, "liberal" legal theory. The modus operandi of these scholars has been to select a specific area of the law and show that because the rules and principles that comprise it are logically incoherent, legal outcomes can always be manipulated by those in power to favor their interests at the expense of the politically "subordinated" classes. The Crits then argue that the claim that the law consists of determinate, just rules which are impartially applied to all is a ruse employed by the powerful to cause these subordinated classes to view the oppressive legal rulings as the necessary outcomes of an objective system of justice. This renders the oppressed more willing to accept their socially subordinated status. Thus, the Crits maintain that the concept of the rule of law is simply a facade used to maintain the socially dominant position of white males in an oppressive and illegitimate capitalist system.

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm


What is the rule of law?

wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJVu9LK7WE


This probably isn't the right market to post this, but if one person reads this, then good for them. They're aware of something which most Americans (and any other nationality) aren't.

[Lootifer]

tl;dr

[Dukasaur]

tl;dr

You missed a beautifully-written essay. Sometimes I wonder if tldr types actually think its a virtue to remain ignorant.

However, if you want the short version: the "Law" is nothing more than the will of the Parasites in Parliament. However, since we all know that they are lying scumbags, they need to preserve the myth that the Law is somehow independent of them and springs from some untainted well of objectivity.

This allows the most outrageous abuses to be clothed in a veneer of fairness.

[Lootifer]

No vitue implied, I just didnt read it cause I have the attention span of a mosquito.

[saxitoxin]

I don't read long text quotations, but I made an exception for this because - as Dukasaur noted - it's beautifully written.

I generally - but not entirely - agree with it. There are two types of law, malum in se (wrong because it's evil) and malum prohibitum (wrong because it's prohibited). IIRC, there is still no actual written law making murder a crime in the UK but courts convict murderers on the basis of malum in se. The great Col. Muammar Qadaffi once wrote:

The law is an eternal human heritage that belongs not just to the living.

So I can't believe all law is part of a mythos. There is a center of law that exists in nature itself.

[BigBallinStalin]

His main point begins by mentioning the impossibility of "doublethink" from 1984; however, he makes the case that "doublethink" occurs with people's perception of the law. People are "aware that the law is inherently political"; however, "[people] simultaneously [regard] the law as a body of definite, politically neutral rules amenable to an impartial application which all citizens have a moral obligation to obey."

Other main points include:

(1) The law itself isn't nefarious, nor can its judges be expected to be fair, objective, and impartial. For many cases, a judge's ruling can be correct, yet so can another judge's who rules directly opposite of the first judge. What's interesting about legal matters is that contradictory positions can both be true, yet this isn't the case with science, philosophy, etc.

(2) Another problem is that no matter how objective and "un-interpretable" (or clearly written) the law is, it will be interpreted in favor of one's normative disposition.

(3) The law can never be made objective for it's always subject to interpretation.

(4) The system which produces judges tends to produce a mostly homogenous culture of judges of a certain mindset who tend to be upper-class, middle-class, well-educated (in the line of thought of particular schools), etc. Their ideologies shape the general progression of law.

(5) The problem becomes compounded when only the state enjoys a monopoly over the law.

(6) I've skimmed over the conclusion, but it seems he's be arguing in favor of a competitive legal system which denies the state its monopoly over the law.


In his own words:

"I refer to the myth of the rule of law because, to the extent this phrase suggests a society in which all are governed by neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges, there is no such thing. As a myth, however, the concept of the rule of law is both powerful and dangerous. Its power derives from its great emotive appeal. The rule of law suggests an absence of arbitrariness, an absence of the worst abuses of tyranny. The image presented by the slogan "America is a government of laws and not people" is one of fair and impartial rule rather than subjugation to human whim. This is an image that can command both the allegiance and affection of the citizenry. After all, who wouldn't be in favor of the rule of law if the only alternative were arbitrary rule? But this image is also the source of the myth's danger. For if citizens really believe that they are being governed by fair and impartial rules and that the only alternative is subjection to personal rule, they will be much more likely to support the state as it progressively curtails their freedom."

"In this Article, I will argue that this is a false dichotomy. Specifically, I intend to establish three points: 1) there is no such thing as a government of law and not people, 2) the belief that there is serves to maintain public support for society's power structure, and 3) the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law."

[lynch5762]

Cheese and crackers... where to start?

I guess I would start by saying that this piece holds many truths, but not many answers as to the future of the true meaning of freedom. I think that you made one incorrect statement in the following and I'm paraphrasing... that if one person reads this then they will become aware of what many Americans and even other nationalities aren't. The problem is that the one's who are aware of the inherent problems are unable to do anything about it anymore.

I really don't know where to start (or for that matter) to end this but I think that civilizations have proven time and time again that they would rather be told what to do then to decide for themselves. (Note: it may appear to many that by speaking up that they are making a decision but in reality the decisions are made by those whom govern... ergo.. speaking up for your rights means nothing if you support the elected [insert; ruler, dictator, communist government or democratic society] It really doesn't matter.

I unfortunately can't find the link because the internet is so cluttered with garbage... but there was a study done by Harvard or one of the ivy league schools years ago that demonstrated the following: 5-10-85.... basically; if you have a building with 100 people in it and the fire alarm goes off, here are the following reactions...

85 people will sit there and wait for instruction
10 people will make a decision to leave the building on their own
and 5 people will take the time to start telling people to get out.

What this means in short is that the majority of people (regardless of nationality or anything) are just waiting to be told what to do. That means that we are a civilization of followers. I gave up trying to fight for my political beliefs long ago because the reality is that the majority decides the vote and....... well just finish it for me.

Many people don't realize that conservatism is a basic human instinct (not a political belief!!) and trust me, if all hell breaks loose... which it appears to be doing... then conservatism will rear it's ugly head in even the most liberal of people!

As to what my rant has to do with your thread? I have no clue.... other than to think that in general people will follow the "rule of law" because they have no choice otherwise. (or I should say... they do but 85% of the time they won't exercise their choice )

[Baron Von PWN]

I have a problem with the essay. The author seems to be too willing to dismiss the racism element/historical context in his two examples.

He strangely suggests the British were willing to oppress the Indians in the interest of the law, but ignores the whole concept of the "civilizing mission" or "white mans burden". to hold such a belief you essentially have to be a massive racist, as it holds as it basic premise the "coloured" peoples such as the Indians, were so inferior that they needed the guiding hand of the British for their own good.

Meanwhile in the USA example, he seems surprised that people who only a couple generations before had thought of blacks not as people but as property wouldn't speak out in significant numbers at their mistreatment, and strangely assumes that the reason for this is their love of law and order.

I will agree it is beautifully written, but his two examples seem to deliberately ignore historical context and apply modern standards to the past (it couldn't possibly be that people were extremely racist it must have been because they loved law and order).

It is unfortunate that he uses these two examples as I believe they have a very interesting argument. Perhaps better examples would be a discussion of more modern police responses to political demonstrations such as the occupy protesters.

[BigBallinStalin]

To me, this explains why people grudgingly or whole-heartedly accept the expanding scope of authority of the state. NDAA 2011 and Patriot Act are gentle reminders of this phenomenon. The president ordering drone strikes against terrorists and civilians becomes acceptable. The president invading other countries on shaky evidence and without punishment becomes acceptable.

People may oppose my and/or the author, John Hasnas', positions for our general position relies on a slippery slope argument; however, the events of the past ten years clearly constitute an actual slippery slope. For an explanation of the ever-increasing growth of government since the 1910s, it appears that the main cause lies in the failure of the people governed to understand the relationship between the rule of law and the state.

In other words, many people are rationally choosing to be sheep. Their faith in the objectivity of the law and its judges has led them astray. And, again another primary cause is that the law is inherently susceptibility to political and special interests--no matter how clearly written and objective the law may be.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't read long text quotations, but I made an exception for this because - as Dukasaur noted - it's beautifully written.

I generally - but not entirely - agree with it. There are two types of law, malum in se (wrong because it's evil) and malum prohibitum (wrong because it's prohibited). IIRC, there is still no actual written law making murder a crime in the UK but courts convict murderers on the basis of malum in se. The great Col. Muammar Qadaffi once wrote:

The law is an eternal human heritage that belongs not just to the living.

So I can't believe all law is part of a mythos. There is a center of law that exists in nature itself.

I think you've misunderstood John Hasnas' main point. He isn't saying that "all law is part of a mythos." His position is that "the myth of the rule of law" is perpetuated by a false dichotomy which people fail to realize. His other points I've outlined above.

[Baron Von PWN]

To me, this explains why people grudgingly or whole-heartedly accept the expanding scope of authority of the state. NDAA 2011 and Patriot Act are gentle reminders of this phenomenon. The president ordering drone strikes against terrorists and civilians becomes acceptable. The president invading other countries on shaky evidence and without punishment becomes acceptable.

People may oppose my and/or the author, John Hasnas', positions for our general position relies on a slippery slope argument; however, the events of the past ten years clearly constitute an actual slippery slope. For an explanation of the ever-increasing growth of government since the 1910s, it appears that the main cause lies in the failure of the people governed to understand the relationship between the rule of law and the state.

In other words, many people are rationally choosing to be sheep. Their faith in the objectivity of the law and its judges has led them astray. And, again another primary cause is that the law is inherently susceptibility to political and special interests--no matter how clearly written and objective the law may be.

I agree with this. I was just taking issue with his examples as I;m a cherry picker.

[kentington]

BBS, tl; didn't read all of it.
I am on some pain medication so I can't pay attention right now. In case you were wondering I recently had a large kidney stone, had a stent put in, had the stone blasted with sound waves, passed the resulting smaller stones (teeth), and the stent is still causing me pain when I move by digging into my kidney, it will be removed a different day, YAY!

Ok, I agree with what I read. If I understood what I read, then the whole Holocaust is a good example of people following along with laws even when it harms them. It is one thing to defy a person but law is law.

[BigBallinStalin]

Cheese and crackers... where to start?

I guess I would start by saying that this piece holds many truths, but not many answers as to the future of the true meaning of freedom. I think that you made one incorrect statement in the following and I'm paraphrasing... that if one person reads this then they will become aware of what many Americans and even other nationalities aren't. The problem is that the one's who are aware of the inherent problems are unable to do anything about it anymore.

First, lynch5762, thanks for responding, and although the following will be contrarian at times, please remember that I appreciate your reply and do respect your position. That being said, let the words fly:


I disagree with your fatalist position because in some cases it might not take as much as you think in order to overcome a problem. For example, as you state below with that Harvard study, in some circumstances, it only takes a few people to act, and the majority will follow. So, if a few people are disseminating ideas such as the author's, then the majority could become inclined to believe likewise, and this could lead to a massive change which would overcoming the status quo.

If you take the fatalist position, then you merely confirm your self-fulfilling prophecy. If you reject such a pessimistic stance, then you can actually change things, which is why I tend to be an optimist for I am willing to take that opportunity to change things for the better--instead of outright rejecting it without even trying. (of course, I don't know your history, so that last phrase need not apply to you. It's just a common occurrence which I notice with some people).

I really don't know where to start (or for that matter) to end this but I think that civilizations have proven time and time again that they would rather be told what to do then to decide for themselves. (Note: it may appear to many that by speaking up that they are making a decision but in reality the decisions are made by those whom govern... ergo.. speaking up for your rights means nothing if you support the elected [insert; ruler, dictator, communist government or democratic society] It really doesn't matter.

I unfortunately can't find the link because the internet is so cluttered with garbage... but there was a study done by Harvard or one of the ivy league schools years ago that demonstrated the following: 5-10-85.... basically; if you have a building with 100 people in it and the fire alarm goes off, here are the following reactions...

85 people will sit there and wait for instruction
10 people will make a decision to leave the building on their own
and 5 people will take the time to start telling people to get out.

What this means in short is that the majority of people (regardless of nationality or anything) are just waiting to be told what to do. That means that we are a civilization of followers. I gave up trying to fight for my political beliefs long ago because the reality is that the majority decides the vote and....... well just finish it for me.

It's dangerous to take the results of a 100-person study and scale that up to an entire nation. In an emergency situation, the conclusions of that study would probably apply in other scenarios as well. In a gradual process where the state exercises increasingly greater authority over the people, then I'm reluctant to say that the study applies. Although I do use that study to support my point, it was merely to show that the opposite of your conclusion, which essentially was 'resistance is futile,' is also a true possibility because all it may take is a few people, in the correct context, and with a "sticky" message to incite a massive positive change.

Gladwell Malcolm provides a more in-depth and overarching view of social change in his book called the Tipping Point. Basically, three aspects matter: (1) key individuals/leaders, (2) stickiness of a message/product, and (3) context. In that Harvard study, the context, being in a building that's possibly on fire, is too specific to apply to an entire nation. (sorry for the repetition), but for me, Malcolm's book is a good guideline for creating positive, social change away from an increasingly authoritarian state. It's a message of genuine hope, which I find realistic.

Many people don't realize that conservatism is a basic human instinct (not a political belief!!) and trust me, if all hell breaks loose... which it appears to be doing... then conservatism will rear it's ugly head in even the most liberal of people!

As to what my rant has to do with your thread? I have no clue.... other than to think that in general people will follow the "rule of law" because they have no choice otherwise. (or I should say... they do but 85% of the time they won't exercise their choice )

Don't lose hope! Regarding "people always being inclined to do what they're told," this is definitely true, however the means of gaining compliance can either be voluntary or involuntary, i.e. I can ask you nicely or offer you something in exchange for your compliance, or I can pull out my gun and "ask you nicely to comply" (threat of violence is also involuntary). We should pay attention this difference.

Currently, I'm reading a book by Bruce Benson called "The Enterprise of Law," subtitled: Justice Without the State, so I could provide examples where rule by the state wasn't the norm, and that people enjoyed a large degree of self-governance; however, I've yet to finish reading it, so perhaps another time, I'll have a more convincing reply for you.

[BigBallinStalin]

To me, this explains why people grudgingly or whole-heartedly accept the expanding scope of authority of the state. NDAA 2011 and Patriot Act are gentle reminders of this phenomenon. The president ordering drone strikes against terrorists and civilians becomes acceptable. The president invading other countries on shaky evidence and without punishment becomes acceptable.

People may oppose my and/or the author, John Hasnas', positions for our general position relies on a slippery slope argument; however, the events of the past ten years clearly constitute an actual slippery slope. For an explanation of the ever-increasing growth of government since the 1910s, it appears that the main cause lies in the failure of the people governed to understand the relationship between the rule of law and the state.

In other words, many people are rationally choosing to be sheep. Their faith in the objectivity of the law and its judges has led them astray. And, again another primary cause is that the law is inherently susceptibility to political and special interests--no matter how clearly written and objective the law may be.

I agree with this. I was just taking issue with his examples as I;m a cherry picker.

WOODRUFF!!!!!!!!!!

[Phatscotty]

I have a problem with the essay. The author seems to be too willing to dismiss the racism element/historical context in his two examples.

He strangely suggests the British were willing to oppress the Indians in the interest of the law, but ignores the whole concept of the "civilizing mission" or "white mans burden". to hold such a belief you essentially have to be a massive racist, as it holds as it basic premise the "coloured" peoples such as the Indians, were so inferior that they needed the guiding hand of the British for their own good.

Meanwhile in the USA example, he seems surprised that people who only a couple generations before had thought of blacks not as people but as property wouldn't speak out in significant numbers at their mistreatment, and strangely assumes that the reason for this is their love of law and order.

I will agree it is beautifully written, but his two examples seem to deliberately ignore historical context and apply modern standards to the past (it couldn't possibly be that people were extremely racist it must have been because they loved law and order).

It is unfortunate that he uses these two examples as I believe they have a very interesting argument. Perhaps better examples would be a discussion of more modern police responses to political demonstrations such as the occupy protesters.

Perhaps he just does not subscribe to the RREAM theory. (race rules everything around me)

One side was much stronger, had a bigger army, and was far more technologically advanced. It doesn't really have anything to do with skin color.

[Baron Von PWN]

I have a problem with the essay. The author seems to be too willing to dismiss the racism element/historical context in his two examples.

He strangely suggests the British were willing to oppress the Indians in the interest of the law, but ignores the whole concept of the "civilizing mission" or "white mans burden". to hold such a belief you essentially have to be a massive racist, as it holds as it basic premise the "coloured" peoples such as the Indians, were so inferior that they needed the guiding hand of the British for their own good.

Meanwhile in the USA example, he seems surprised that people who only a couple generations before had thought of blacks not as people but as property wouldn't speak out in significant numbers at their mistreatment, and strangely assumes that the reason for this is their love of law and order.

I will agree it is beautifully written, but his two examples seem to deliberately ignore historical context and apply modern standards to the past (it couldn't possibly be that people were extremely racist it must have been because they loved law and order).

It is unfortunate that he uses these two examples as I believe they have a very interesting argument. Perhaps better examples would be a discussion of more modern police responses to political demonstrations such as the occupy protesters.

Perhaps he just does not subscribe to the RREAM theory. (race rules everything around me)

One side was much stronger, had a bigger army, and was far more technologically advanced. It doesn't really have anything to do with skin color.

Didn't have anything to do with skin colour? Then why did the British develop the whole concept of the "civilising mission". That the British had the bigger army was probably why they rarely intermingled with the Indians and refused them higher positions in the Raj bureaucracy. That must also be why Britons in the raj would refer to the natives as "niggers".

And what of the USA? did all that oppression happen only because the white's had more guns? there was nothing more to it than that? So if a white guy fell victim to the army he would also lose his rights? Interesting take on all those laws that hinged on race.

[Phatscotty]

I have a problem with the essay. The author seems to be too willing to dismiss the racism element/historical context in his two examples.

He strangely suggests the British were willing to oppress the Indians in the interest of the law, but ignores the whole concept of the "civilizing mission" or "white mans burden". to hold such a belief you essentially have to be a massive racist, as it holds as it basic premise the "coloured" peoples such as the Indians, were so inferior that they needed the guiding hand of the British for their own good.

Meanwhile in the USA example, he seems surprised that people who only a couple generations before had thought of blacks not as people but as property wouldn't speak out in significant numbers at their mistreatment, and strangely assumes that the reason for this is their love of law and order.

I will agree it is beautifully written, but his two examples seem to deliberately ignore historical context and apply modern standards to the past (it couldn't possibly be that people were extremely racist it must have been because they loved law and order).

It is unfortunate that he uses these two examples as I believe they have a very interesting argument. Perhaps better examples would be a discussion of more modern police responses to political demonstrations such as the occupy protesters.

Perhaps he just does not subscribe to the RREAM theory. (race rules everything around me)

One side was much stronger, had a bigger army, and was far more technologically advanced. It doesn't really have anything to do with skin color.

Didn't have anything to do with skin colour? Then why did the British develop the whole concept of the "civilising mission". That the British had the bigger army was probably why they rarely intermingled with the Indians and refused them higher positions in the Raj bureaucracy. That must also be why Britons in the raj would refer to the natives as "niggers".

And what of the USA? did all that oppression happen only because the white's had more guns? there was nothing more to it than that? So if a white guy fell victim to the army he would also lose his rights? Interesting take on all those laws that hinged on race.

Britain did it for power and wealth.

The truth is the winners of wars were the winners, and the losers were the losers.

[Baron Von PWN]

I have a problem with the essay. The author seems to be too willing to dismiss the racism element/historical context in his two examples.

He strangely suggests the British were willing to oppress the Indians in the interest of the law, but ignores the whole concept of the "civilizing mission" or "white mans burden". to hold such a belief you essentially have to be a massive racist, as it holds as it basic premise the "coloured" peoples such as the Indians, were so inferior that they needed the guiding hand of the British for their own good.

Meanwhile in the USA example, he seems surprised that people who only a couple generations before had thought of blacks not as people but as property wouldn't speak out in significant numbers at their mistreatment, and strangely assumes that the reason for this is their love of law and order.

I will agree it is beautifully written, but his two examples seem to deliberately ignore historical context and apply modern standards to the past (it couldn't possibly be that people were extremely racist it must have been because they loved law and order).

It is unfortunate that he uses these two examples as I believe they have a very interesting argument. Perhaps better examples would be a discussion of more modern police responses to political demonstrations such as the occupy protesters.

Perhaps he just does not subscribe to the RREAM theory. (race rules everything around me)

One side was much stronger, had a bigger army, and was far more technologically advanced. It doesn't really have anything to do with skin color.

Didn't have anything to do with skin colour? Then why did the British develop the whole concept of the "civilising mission". That the British had the bigger army was probably why they rarely intermingled with the Indians and refused them higher positions in the Raj bureaucracy. That must also be why Britons in the raj would refer to the natives as "niggers".

And what of the USA? did all that oppression happen only because the white's had more guns? there was nothing more to it than that? So if a white guy fell victim to the army he would also lose his rights? Interesting take on all those laws that hinged on race.

Britain did it for power and wealth.

The truth is the winners of wars were the winners, and the losers were the losers.

So they did it for power an wealth sure. Why were they repressive in the manner they were afterwards though?

[AndyDufresne]

Super-duper-power!?!


--Andy

[lynch5762]

Cheese and crackers... where to start?

I guess I would start by saying that this piece holds many truths, but not many answers as to the future of the true meaning of freedom. I think that you made one incorrect statement in the following and I'm paraphrasing... that if one person reads this then they will become aware of what many Americans and even other nationalities aren't. The problem is that the one's who are aware of the inherent problems are unable to do anything about it anymore.

First, lynch5762, thanks for responding, and although the following will be contrarian at times, please remember that I appreciate your reply and do respect your position. That being said, let the words fly:


I disagree with your fatalist position because in some cases it might not take as much as you think in order to overcome a problem. For example, as you state below with that Harvard study, in some circumstances, it only takes a few people to act, and the majority will follow. So, if a few people are disseminating ideas such as the author's, then the majority could become inclined to believe likewise, and this could lead to a massive change which would overcoming the status quo.

If you take the fatalist position, then you merely confirm your self-fulfilling prophecy. If you reject such a pessimistic stance, then you can actually change things, which is why I tend to be an optimist for I am willing to take that opportunity to change things for the better--instead of outright rejecting it without even trying. (of course, I don't know your history, so that last phrase need not apply to you. It's just a common occurrence which I notice with some people).

I really don't know where to start (or for that matter) to end this but I think that civilizations have proven time and time again that they would rather be told what to do then to decide for themselves. (Note: it may appear to many that by speaking up that they are making a decision but in reality the decisions are made by those whom govern... ergo.. speaking up for your rights means nothing if you support the elected [insert; ruler, dictator, communist government or democratic society] It really doesn't matter.

I unfortunately can't find the link because the internet is so cluttered with garbage... but there was a study done by Harvard or one of the ivy league schools years ago that demonstrated the following: 5-10-85.... basically; if you have a building with 100 people in it and the fire alarm goes off, here are the following reactions...

85 people will sit there and wait for instruction
10 people will make a decision to leave the building on their own
and 5 people will take the time to start telling people to get out.

What this means in short is that the majority of people (regardless of nationality or anything) are just waiting to be told what to do. That means that we are a civilization of followers. I gave up trying to fight for my political beliefs long ago because the reality is that the majority decides the vote and....... well just finish it for me.

It's dangerous to take the results of a 100-person study and scale that up to an entire nation. In an emergency situation, the conclusions of that study would probably apply in other scenarios as well. In a gradual process where the state exercises increasingly greater authority over the people, then I'm reluctant to say that the study applies. Although I do use that study to support my point, it was merely to show that the opposite of your conclusion, which essentially was 'resistance is futile,' is also a true possibility because all it may take is a few people, in the correct context, and with a "sticky" message to incite a massive positive change.

Gladwell Malcolm provides a more in-depth and overarching view of social change in his book called the Tipping Point. Basically, three aspects matter: (1) key individuals/leaders, (2) stickiness of a message/product, and (3) context. In that Harvard study, the context, being in a building that's possibly on fire, is too specific to apply to an entire nation. (sorry for the repetition), but for me, Malcolm's book is a good guideline for creating positive, social change away from an increasingly authoritarian state. It's a message of genuine hope, which I find realistic.

Many people don't realize that conservatism is a basic human instinct (not a political belief!!) and trust me, if all hell breaks loose... which it appears to be doing... then conservatism will rear it's ugly head in even the most liberal of people!

As to what my rant has to do with your thread? I have no clue.... other than to think that in general people will follow the "rule of law" because they have no choice otherwise. (or I should say... they do but 85% of the time they won't exercise their choice )

Don't lose hope! Regarding "people always being inclined to do what they're told," this is definitely true, however the means of gaining compliance can either be voluntary or involuntary, i.e. I can ask you nicely or offer you something in exchange for your compliance, or I can pull out my gun and "ask you nicely to comply" (threat of violence is also involuntary). We should pay attention this difference.

Currently, I'm reading a book by Bruce Benson called "The Enterprise of Law," subtitled: Justice Without the State, so I could provide examples where rule by the state wasn't the norm, and that people enjoyed a large degree of self-governance; however, I've yet to finish reading it, so perhaps another time, I'll have a more convincing reply for you.

Trust me I will never lose hope... I don't have much time to comment but I will address a couple quick things...

(1) I prefer "realist" as apposed to "fatalist"
(2) You make good points but the premise behind the study was due to the history of civilizations and the numbers can easily be extrapolated... history has repeated itself so many times it is almost a surety.
(3) When I get the time I will try to take a look at the pieces you mentioned.. (the only problem is that I am so worried about the future that I am too busy hoarding every penny I can.. )

[Phatscotty]

I have a problem with the essay. The author seems to be too willing to dismiss the racism element/historical context in his two examples.

He strangely suggests the British were willing to oppress the Indians in the interest of the law, but ignores the whole concept of the "civilizing mission" or "white mans burden". to hold such a belief you essentially have to be a massive racist, as it holds as it basic premise the "coloured" peoples such as the Indians, were so inferior that they needed the guiding hand of the British for their own good.

Meanwhile in the USA example, he seems surprised that people who only a couple generations before had thought of blacks not as people but as property wouldn't speak out in significant numbers at their mistreatment, and strangely assumes that the reason for this is their love of law and order.

I will agree it is beautifully written, but his two examples seem to deliberately ignore historical context and apply modern standards to the past (it couldn't possibly be that people were extremely racist it must have been because they loved law and order).

It is unfortunate that he uses these two examples as I believe they have a very interesting argument. Perhaps better examples would be a discussion of more modern police responses to political demonstrations such as the occupy protesters.

Perhaps he just does not subscribe to the RREAM theory. (race rules everything around me)

One side was much stronger, had a bigger army, and was far more technologically advanced. It doesn't really have anything to do with skin color.

Didn't have anything to do with skin colour? Then why did the British develop the whole concept of the "civilising mission". That the British had the bigger army was probably why they rarely intermingled with the Indians and refused them higher positions in the Raj bureaucracy. That must also be why Britons in the raj would refer to the natives as "niggers".

And what of the USA? did all that oppression happen only because the white's had more guns? there was nothing more to it than that? So if a white guy fell victim to the army he would also lose his rights? Interesting take on all those laws that hinged on race.

Britain did it for power and wealth.

The truth is the winners of wars were the winners, and the losers were the losers.

So they did it for power an wealth sure. Why were they repressive in the manner they were afterwards though?

Whatever they did, they did it because they could, and because the people they were doing it to were unable stop them.