Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Eddie Dane]

Who exactly went to Spain to defend liberal democracy?

I image quite a few people went there because they thought the government was elected and progressive (land reform, law reform, educational reform etc).

Considering the long list of ideologies on the left, they may have been a minority among the anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, communists and whole lot of ism's I've forgotten.

I might be wrong though.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Ooh, I found a new favorite!

I really oppose violence against a man . But I have to admit, that made me laugh.

Damn you, Cleon.

Edit: a man who non violently gives his opinions, I mean

 

[Ziggurat]

No, you'll notice that those aren't the same thing.

Why do you have such a hard time admitting that you didn't understand what the term "rule of law" means?

 

[Belz...]

Why do you have such a hard time admitting that you didn't understand what the term "rule of law" means?

Because I know exactly what it means.

Why do you have such a hard time admitting that you think the poster had the moral high ground because you agreed with him?

 

[caveman1917]

I image quite a few people went there because they thought the government was elected and progressive (land reform, law reform, educational reform etc).

Considering the long list of ideologies on the left, they may have been a minority among the anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, communists and whole lot of ism's I've forgotten.

I might be wrong though.

All of the international volunteer brigades I know of where left-wing of various tendencies, and they mostly went there to have a revolution. I don't know of any group who specifically went to defend liberal democracy. It would be a bit silly, a liberal going to defend liberal democracy in the middle of an anarchist and communist revolution.

 

[uke2se]

I image quite a few people went there because they thought the government was elected and progressive (land reform, law reform, educational reform etc).

Considering the long list of ideologies on the left, they may have been a minority among the anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, communists and whole lot of ism's I've forgotten.

I might be wrong though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwelledia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

For one.

Many people were drawn to the Republican cause, which was to a large extent a liberal democracy.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Guys, Ziggurat is right. The most important aspect of the rule of law is that lawmakers and enforcers are specifically empowered and limited by the law themselves, with a judiciary to intepret the laws and impeachment procedures for violations. The last one is perhaps the most difficult to uphold - such respect must be established by convention and consensus for the law that government representatives are willing to remove their own for violating it. Ineffectiveness of such procedures is typically one of the main prerequisites for authoritarian rule.

For example: Iran is ostensibly a constitutional republic governed by laws. Technically, the council of experts have the power to remove the Supreme Leader, but in practice the leaders' political power has been so great any dissent could be crushed easily.

The Weimar Republic had similar issues. The president was elected, but there was no effective check on his authority, leading to egregious rule by decree.

 

[Belz...]

Guys, Ziggurat is right. The most important aspect of the rule of law is that lawmakers and enforcers are specifically empowered and limited by the law themselves, with a judiciary to intepret the laws and impeachment procedures for violations.

Of course, but he's forgetting an important point: the laws can change very quickly as well. And what about executive orders? Seems like law of man to me, especially since the next President can undo them at will.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Of course, but he's forgetting an important point: the laws can change very quickly as well. And what about executive orders? Seems like law of man to me, especially since the next President can undo them at will.

Most governments are empowered to issue decrees of some sort to their agencies. But those decrees cannot violate the laws set by parliamentary procedures.

 

[Belz...]

Most governments are empowered to issue decrees of some sort to their agencies. But those decrees cannot violate the laws set by parliamentary procedures.

Not normally, anyway. There usually ways to use emergencies as reasons to go beyond that, though of course some systems are sturdier than others. Didn't Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus? That sounds like a constitutional violation, but perhaps I'm wrong on this.

 

[theprestige]

Of course, but he's forgetting an important point: the laws can change very quickly as well. And what about executive orders? Seems like law of man to me, especially since the next President can undo them at will.

Once we agree on the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of man, we can debate things like: Which do we prefer? Which is more prevalent in the US? What should be done to get closer to one or the other?

You seem more willing to agree with TB than with Zig (are you personalizing the debate?), but not to the point where you're ready to discuss these other questions.

 

[caveman1917]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwelledia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

For one.

Many people were drawn to the Republican cause, which was to a large extent a liberal democracy.

Being a socialist himself, he fought alongside the Trotskist POUM in the revolution. Later he said that had he understood things better that he would've fought with the anarchists rather than the Trotskists. How is Orwell an example of someone going to Spain to defend liberal democracy?

 

[Belz...]

Once we agree on the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of man

We've agreed from the get-go. Zig's the only one who thinks I don't understand what the terms mean. My only point about it was that the distinction was irrelevant (and that it isn't a clear dichotomy), especially given the topic and event we're discussing.

You seem more willing to agree with TB than with Zig

I'm quite willing to agree with Zig.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Not normally, anyway. There usually ways to use emergencies as reasons to go beyond that, though of course some systems are sturdier than others. Didn't Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus? That sounds like a constitutional violation, but perhaps I'm wrong on this.

Yes, Roosevelt's internment order is another example of an obvious overreach that was deemed politically acceptable. The Lousiana Purchase is yet another.

There will always be unusual circumstances where leeway is granted, and any system will break down under sufficient stress.

 

[Thermal]

So does Bernie Sanders's speech. There's a subtext of violence against the rich. But subtext doesn't suffice.

Doesn't suffice for what? What are you talking about? I did not claim it met the legal standard of incitement to violence, but it could be argued that it was inherent in his philosophy.

No to the latter, which is the relevant part. There's no such thing as "tacit incitement".

Ridiculous. Tacit means understood without being openly expressed, and incitement means to stir, encourage, or urge on (both primary definitions from dictionary.com). You can easily stir or encourage without openly expressing. Are you equivocating by transposing the legal standard onto the common English usage?

These are not crimes, they are infractions (and undeclared cash from a yard sale generally isn't even that). They're generally malum in prohibitum rather than malum in se, and degree absolutely matters as well. But most importantly, if one group of citizens were allowed to consistently violate such minor laws and another was not, that would actually be a major problem.

Again, what are you going on about? Who is talking about one group being allowed to consistently violate and another not? I am comfortable with individuals engaging in extra-judicial acts, but that offenders would have to pay the piper if charged. No suggestion of specific groups being 'allowed' and others not.

But he does not attempt to do so in violation of the law.

And no one is claiming he does.

Anyone who advocates changing the law is "outside the law" in this respect. This is a meaningless standard. There are plenty of grounds to criticize him, but none to claim that he deserves anything less than the full protection of the law.

Why are you harping about what is legal or illegal? It seems universally agreed that the punch was illegal. The question is, 'Is it okay?' as Buzz Aldrin's punch is viewed as okay (no, he was not assaulted by Sebrel with a Bible while filming).

 

[Thermal]

Guys, Ziggurat is right. The most important aspect of the rule of law is that lawmakers and enforcers are specifically empowered and limited by the law themselves, with a judiciary to intepret the laws and impeachment procedures for violations...

Right, but no one (possibly excepting a molecularly-rearranging caveman) is arguing that. This is more of a Natural Law v Rule of Law debate, isn't it? Interpreting it solely under rule of law will of course find in favor of law.

 

[caveman1917]

Right, but no one (possibly excepting a molecularly-rearranging caveman) is arguing that. This is more of a Rule of Man v Rule of Law debate, isn't it?

No it's a Rule of (individual) Man v Rule of Bourgeoisie debate, but the latter is couched under a "Rule of Law" rhetoric.

 

[Thermal]

No it's a Rule of (individual) Man v Rule of Bourgeoisie debate, but the latter is couched under a "Rule of Law" rhetoric.

My bad, meant Natural Law but wrote Rule of Man. Edited.

 

[Ziggurat]

Doesn't suffice for what?

To justify assaulting him, either legally or even morally.

Again, what are you going on about?

The rule of law, and whether or not we want to be a nation governed by the rule of law.

Why are you harping about what is legal or illegal?

Because it matters.

It seems universally agreed that the punch was illegal. The question is, 'Is it okay?' as Buzz Aldrin's punch is viewed as okay (no, he was not assaulted by Sebrel with a Bible while filming).

Aldrin was threatened by Sebrel. Nobody was being threatened by Spencer. These are not equivalent situations.

 

[Ziggurat]

We've agreed from the get-go.

No, we haven't. You said that dictatorships have rule of law. They don't. You have never retracted this claim.