A Chance Meeting with a Casual Aquaintance

I encountered a casual acquaintance at a coffee shop. I had only encountered him a few times a year ago. Neither of us were friends.


Around the time I knew him, another man- I'll call x - invited me to share his cell with him. A huge guy. The truth is, I declined because I thought we was such a fucking idiot, his ego was so implausibly big it wasn't even real, just a projection, a notational conceit. Thiiiiiis big, as it were. Lacking a reference space to reality, it would be projected on external situations, relating everything to himself. And he was an insecure, pathetic man who could not hide his weakness in brawn

Waiting in line for coffee, my former acquaintance complimented my instincts: "It turns out you were right about x. He was a cell rapist."

Early Musings on The Rule of Law

Karl Deinninger https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231471

You should close this website and immediately navitate to Karl Denninger

The harassment and bullying of Churches, their leaders and members is a measure of the good faith in which authorities have implemented law. Apologies suffice for the illuminated leaders. For their hypocritical public indiscretions, redoubled devotion is considered suitable penance.

I take as a matter of record that these rules have been applied partially. In the case of Churches, we're seeing a vindictiveness and capriciousness with no natural endpoint.

The messaging has been "Common rules, laid out by authorities in the interest of public safety". It seemed to jibe with grade school civics and there didn’t seem to be an obvious rejoinder.


The Problem of Illegitimate Laws Which Seem Legitimated Under The Doctrine.

~~~~

The failure of laws to be equally enforced explicitly contravenes the logic of the doctrine as most people understand it. Many people are learning why the hard way.

However, arbitrariness in formulating orders can be just as essential. In extremis, the problem is identical to inconsistent application. Jurisdiction-wide edicts are well within the capability of despots.  Elastic laws which change weekly, with every pretextual contingency,  have the same trait of arbitrariness.

In effect, of course they cannot be applied consistently. For such "laws" to undermine the rule of law, they don't need to fail for lack of equal application.  Yes, even if it applies to everyone in all specified circumstances.  If the circumstances are specified for each new ad-hoc rule, there is no  meaningful difference in effect.

In the guise of "the rule of law" his unfair and unreasonable bullying will continue to be available to anyone cynical and connected enough to deploy the methods. Even if they were not calibrated precisely to deny equal recourse - which they are - the process of forming rules itself is compromising the legitimacy of our rulers.

It's not Churchgoers who have been lawless here, but the regime.