View previous topic | View next topic

The Party of Law and Order

Page 1 of 1

PDR
1358563.  Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:38 am Reply with quote

An interesting perspective from SB:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1306153379475976193?s=20

PDR

 
Alexander Howard
1358582.  Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:34 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore notwithstanding the Lawes of Nature, (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep them, when he can do it safely,) if there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men.

 
PDR
1358585.  Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:53 pm Reply with quote

Thankfully the world has moved on a bit since Hobbes. But again you seem anxious to again confirm you feel under no particular obligation to abide by society's laws. It fits with the pattern of support for the Brexit mendocracy and continual scoffing at "face nappies" because you really don't care that you place others at risk with your irresponsible behaviour and general contempt for anyone other than yourself.

PDR

 
Leith
1358590.  Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:14 pm Reply with quote

Hobbes' description of the consequences of treating "Covenants without the Sword" as "but Words" are perhaps instructive, too:
Quote:
In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

 
Alexander Howard
1358592.  Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:46 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
when the Soveraign Power ceaseth, Crime also ceaseth: for where there is no such Power, there is no protection to be had from the Law; and therefore every one may protect himself by his own power


As there is no international sovereign power, there is no international law, and each state may protect itself by its own power.

No, mankind has not change in the last 350 years since the observation was made. I don't think we have changed in 350 centuries.

 
PDR
1358596.  Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:14 pm Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:

As there is no international sovereign power, there is no international law, and each state may protect itself by its own power.


My god - a genuine dinosaur promoting gunboat diplomacy rather than the rule of law. Fortunately some less Jurassic people feel otherwise, so we had the Nuremberg trials to address the CRIMES committed against my ancestors under INTERNATIONAL LAW. And we had The International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 to address the CRIMES committed under INTERNATIONAL LAW.

International law is a recognised thing - Both de facto and de jure. So all your rather sad expounding of the despotic agenda, promoting the cause of liars and thugs, is simply factually incorrect.

Quote:

No, mankind has not change in the last 350 years since the observation was made. I don't think we have changed in 350 centuries.


Mankind has changed - throwbacks like you simply hark back to times when rule by bullying and murder was acceptable. Normal people find such attitudes abhorrent.

PDR

 
Leith
1358615.  Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:04 pm Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
Quote:
when the Soveraign Power ceaseth, Crime also ceaseth: for where there is no such Power, there is no protection to be had from the Law; and therefore every one may protect himself by his own power


As there is no international sovereign power, there is no international law, and each state may protect itself by its own power.

It's harder to misrepresent Hobbe's dire warnings against the state of savagery that petains in the absence of the rule of law as something to actually aspire to if you don't snip off the start:
Quote:
From this relation of Sinne to the Law, and of Crime to the Civill Law, may be inferred, First, that where Law ceaseth, Sinne ceaseth. But because the Law of Nature is eternall, Violation of Covenants, Ingratitude, Arrogance, and all Facts contrary to any Morall vertue, can never cease to be Sinne.

... and the end:
Quote:
But this is to be understood onely of those, that have not themselves contributed to the taking away of the Power that protected them: for that was a Crime from the beginning.

of that passage.

 
suze
1358618.  Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:10 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Normal people find such attitudes abhorrent.


Let us therefore move from Hobbes to John Stuart Mill.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

 
Celebaelin
1358624.  Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:38 pm Reply with quote

I love this website!

 
Alexander Howard
1358630.  Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:10 am Reply with quote

- which is why I am a radical, for changing things to a conservative direction.

I am agreeing with all this. The Hobbes distinction is between 'Sinne' and 'Lawe' - law is that set of rules which is enforced by the sword. Morality is independent of it, and states are at their worst when they substitute their own laws in place of morality.

International relations are in the nature of uneasy covenants between nations: unless there is a supervening authority, they are not strictly 'law'. A way has been found to punish the very worst of behaviour, and that system does not easily fit into any philosophical category, except that we are very glad it exists as a threat against the enemies of all mankind, and no one will weep when we hang Nazis or those who slew their neighbours in Rwanda.

Law is no substitute for morality. Back to Mills:

Quote:
there are, in our own day, gross usurpations upon the liberty of private life actually practised, and still greater ones threatened with some expectation of success, and opinions propounded which assert an unlimited right in the public not only to prohibit by law everything which it thinks wrong, but, in order to get at what it thinks wrong, to prohibit a number of things which it admits to be innocent.


(I'm surprised Mills has not yet been denounced and no-platformed for being so inimical to the Woke sensitivity. Presumably those people don't read him.)

 
CB27
1358640.  Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:51 am Reply with quote

Going back to Pritti's pronouncement, and almost identical words used by other politicians both here in the UK and in other countries.

Why do people still applaud politicians when they claim themselves as being part of a "Party of Law and Order"?

The fact that they have to pronounce this should set alarm bells in anyone's minds because it usually means one of two things. Either they are trying to justify actions that are deemed unlawful by others, or they're justifying reducing civil liberties to "restore order".

It's almost tempting to invoke Godwin's Law to give examples of how destructive that kind of propaganda can be...

 
suze
1358681.  Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:50 am Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
Back to Mills:


Come on Mr Howards, is it too difficult to get the fellow's name right?

 
PDR
1358685.  Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:24 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Going back to Pritti's pronouncement, and almost identical words used by other politicians both here in the UK and in other countries.

Why do people still applaud politicians when they claim themselves as being part of a "Party of Law and Order"?


Also a rather hollow claim since she and her predecessors (back to the infamous Grayling) have presided over the wholesale de-funding of our justice system to the point where it simply no longer functions. Secret Barrister has been pointing this our for years (read his book - anyone who isn't embarrassed and angry at the end of every page must be as big a crook as they are). Now even the BBC has picked it up. Any home secretary and/or justice minister who preside over a system where people are held or remand for longer than the longest sentence available were they found guilty simply because they have de-funded the courts simply to provide tax breaks to rich cronies should be slashing their wrists in shame. But then Roget's Thesaurus suggests "Conservative" is a synonym for "dishonourable, disreputable lying cunt" (you just have to stand back and squint a bit).

So they are not the party of law and order. they are the party of fraud, corruption, criminality, graft, hopeless ineptitude and opportunist racism. While burning at the stake is clearly too good for them I suggest that just this once we should be generous and indulge them - manacled arm in arm singing some jingoistic anthem as the flames purge their misdoings.

Anything more might be seen as extreme.

PDR

 
tetsabb
1358691.  Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:53 am Reply with quote

PDR, I think your vision of their fate shows you to be a snowflake liberal type with little imagination.
😉

 

Page 1 of 1

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group