"Equal justice under the law" is a lie

by Rudd-O published 2011/12/07 20:57:02 GMT+0, last modified 2013-06-26T03:24:34+00:00
No such thing is possible. The rulers of yore knew about it. The rulers of today, just as well.

Theodoric giving me a heads-up in response to my comment:

I found this definition helpful, so thanks. I think Stef has mentioned in the past that law was never designed to apply to the ruling class, and this is confirmed by my recent reading of David Starkey's "Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII" which contains a fascinating insight of social organisation in England in the 16th century. Monarchs, their cohorts, blood line and the aristocracy in general were absolutely not subject to any form of law. It also occurs to me that the initial application of law automatically gave rise to the concept of privilege, privus: the self + lex; law, i.e. a law unto oneself. The fact that endless phrases promoting the concept of equal justice under the law appear in flourishing lettering for all to see on law courts throughout the world is actually a testament (as everyone knows) to the fact that it is completely untrue.

My original comment:

Law is the antithesis of justice. It is the antithesis of peace. It is the antithesis of order. It is the coercive replacement of social norms. Law is the collection of arbitrary orders invented by a monopoly of violence. So, excuse me if I interpreted you as saying that you were saying "property requires government" -- but my interpretation fits the facts and the everyday usage of the words you used.

It is not a law to say "this hat that I am wearing is mine, and if you attempt to steal it, I will use violence to defend it" -- it is just the valid conclusion deduced from valid ethical premises. Law would be "everybody is prohibited to rob, except for this little group that just oh so coincidentally happens to give the orders, in which case robbery is expressly permitted".