The column is called Coulter's Law.
Rule of law does not mean there are many tough rules enforced by tougher cops. Quite the opposite in fact—all nations have tough cops and tough laws. It is the nature of the law that counts. The philosopher who inspired our Declaration of Independence, John Locke, set that standard. Law must be “established, settled, known law,” based on “common consent to be the standard of right and wrong and the common measure to decide all controversies.” They must be “promulgated, established laws, not to be varied in particular cases but to have one rule for rich and poor, the favorite at court and the countryman at plow."
Today no one knows all the laws he is subject to in the U.S. Thousands of laws are passed each year and they accumulate since few are repealed. Bureaucratic regulators pass many times more rules that have the force of law. Even lawyers need to specialize since not even the experts know the law outside one’s narrow field. The laws are not “known,” much less established or settled or based on common experience. If one cannot know the laws it is impossible to obey them, especially when there are so many and mostly vague.
When there are so many unreasonable laws that everybody is a criminal, the government can arrest, threaten, extort, and control any one of us at any time...because there is always SOME law we have broken, even unwittingly...and on the government's whim, we can be sent to prison, or at the very least, be forced to impoverish ourselves defending against it.
That is not the definition of a Free People.
The Gunslinger
"When there are so many unreasonable laws that everybody is a criminal, the government can arrest, threaten, extort, and control any one of us at any time...because there is always SOME law we have broken, even unwittingly...and on the government's whim, we can be sent to prison, or at the very least, be forced to impoverish ourselves defending against it.
ReplyDeleteThat is not the definition of a Free People."
Sounds strangely familiar. I read in a free London paper this morning that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is 'studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full" ' after Dr Watson stated that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really". Somehow I can't shake the feeling that 'studying the remarks in full' translates to 'seeing if we can jail this one after the Nick Griffin fiasco'.
Keith Vaz, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, has said "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments"
Isn't it nice when unelected race-agitators of such prestigious background know better than Nobel-winning scientists?
Oh yes, indeed. And let's make it a CRIME to speak unpopular ideas.
ReplyDeleteThat'll make us safe and free.
You bet.