The principles of civil disobedience, and even legitimate revolution, are written into our founding documents, and certainly were carried out in our actions.
You might then want to ask yourself: "What really is 'the rule of law' in such a political system?"
You can flounce around, toss around at each other, or at me, 'fine points of law' (as Rumpole put it), or jurisprudential history from, say, Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Grotius, Locke, Milton, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Bentham, Burke, Smith, Hegel, Proudhon, Mill, Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Hart, Rawls, Dworkin, Fuller, Raz, Kelsen, Austin, Bobbitt, etc., talk about the original position, state of nature, sovereignty, legal realism, positivism, utilitarianism, laws of war, punishment and responsibility, etc., until you tire of it, but still, the question is there.
A more modern example, of just one aspect: What if a so called market imperative Trumps all else, including what has been called the rule of law? Isn't that, after all, one of the things Bobbitt implies in his account of the Market State in Shield?
A more modern example, of just one aspect: What if a so called market imperative Trumps all else, including what has been called the rule of law? Isn't that, after all, one of the things Bobbitt implies in his account of the Market State in Shield?
No comments:
Post a Comment