• Grre
    196
    In my law school we are discussing the rule of law currently, mainly how it operates as formal (procedural) and substantive, to legitimize law and ensure that everyone is subject to law. It of course fluctuates and varies from country to country/era to era, and can be eroded or improved by changes to legislature, leadership, governance system ect. It is an ideal-one that dates back to Plato and Aristotle (although Plato held that the most ideal form of government is one ruled by good men, ie. philosopher kings).

    Anyways, my question then, appears to be a pretty straight forward one. If historically, divine rule is seen as a contradiction to the doctrine of the rule of law (and subsequently other incumbent ideals such as democracy, equality ect.) then under late-stage capitalism, can wealth/money be seen as a parallel to this idea of divine rule, and thus contradictory to the rule of law...
    This power structure continues to some degree contemporarily, where an argument could be made that the rich are allowed power because of this wealth-they themselves are divine, due to either hard work or privilege (again, usually more of the latter) they have earned the unquestionable right to uber power above even the law-because money does always, to at least some degree, allow for the circumvention of the law. For example, fines punish the poor and working class, not the rich, and especially not the ultra rich or the corporations who can afford to throw away some pocket change or barricade themselves behind an army of lawyers. Law-and especially in the states, the electoral system, is malleable by money-wealth, and those who are in possession of it, are divine insofar as they are untouchable and remain unquestioned. Why do they remain unquestioned? Again, either out of sheer ignorance and class unconsciousness, or out this divinity-encumbant entitlement as part of the very definition. If this is the case, which I think someone would be hard pressed to give examples of how its not, then the rule of law (and democracy, equality) exist on a spectrum, with reality much farther from the ideal than most would be apt to admit.

    Again, this all seems pretty straightforward and I could link plenty of evidence of this in action...not least the public cases of Nestle dodging environmental regulations ect. I'm not up to debating this so much as examining the implications of it...why do people stand for this? Is elitism some ingrained and necessary part of human social organizing behaviour? But one has to look at anthropological history then and see how the Indigenous/nomadic pre-agricultural societies functioned well enough without either divine rule or any form of class stratification, let alone based on systems of wealth/property hoarding....is it civilization then that necessitates elitism that will, regardless of well-thought out ideals, fall prey to some form of divinity system* (for lack of a better term to term to describe the conceptual parrarells between divine/unquestionable worship of a monotheistic god (and those deemed to represent Him) and that of wealth accumulation and the wealthy)? What is the future for this, do you think? Anything related to this discussion is welcome...
  • Brett
    3k


    But one has to look at anthropological history then and see how the Indigenous/nomadic pre-agricultural societies functioned well enough without either divine rule or any form of class stratification,Grre

    Is that actually true, no tribal elders, no chiefs, no shamans, no female/male dynamics?

    All that equals power. And if that means security for the tribe then they retain that power.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    Why do they remain unquestioned? Again, either out of sheer ignorance and class unconsciousness, or out this divinity-encumbant entitlement as part of the very definition.Grre

    What would "questioning" constitute? I think there's plenty of "questioning" going on, open any newspapers, even the right wing rags, and you'll not read anyone claiming that the rich and powerful deserve all the influence they get, you'd have to go to some Randian sociopath to get that kind of argument.

    So why, despite all this "questioning", this rhetoric, do the rich and powerful retain the influence they have? Basically, they didn't get that influence coincidentally, they got it by manipulating social dynamics to make it desirable to allow them that influence. People are broadly driven by adopting the requisite behaviour and attitude of the social group to which they wish to belong. The distance that globalised (or even national) media creates between the desired social group and its members, allows companies and individuals to present whatever attitudes and behaviours best suit their needs as if they were already in place in that social group. Thus would be members adopt those attitudes and behaviours in order to secure membership.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    We tend to blame the those at the upper echelons of the private sphere for having the means to acquire power through purchasing advantage. I think this is the wrong approach because the vast majority of us operate in the same private sphere. The rich, like the poor, are private citizens.

    Private citizens, rich and poor, would not purchase power or advantage if there wasn’t first someone selling it. Wherever there are those that legislate and administer the law lies the problem.
  • Isaac
    10.3k


    You're thinking too simplistically in terms of buying influence with direct payments. This is only a tiny fraction of the mean by which money can buy influence.

    Tax breaks for the wealthy, for example, are rarely just 'bought'. They're part of a package in right-wing governments which also includes populist legislation. Control of what constitutes popular opinion is disproportionately held by the wealthy.
  • ssu
    7.9k
    . If historically, divine rule is seen as a contradiction to the doctrine of the rule of law (and subsequently other incumbent ideals such as democracy, equality ect.) then under late-stage capitalism, can wealth/money be seen as a parallel to this idea of divine rule, and thus contradictory to the rule of law...Grre

    If you have out of control lobbying and inherent structural corruption, don't blame it people that are rich. Blame it on the system that has basically legalized corruption and is built the whole charade.

    You see nobody is arguing truly for plutocracy, starting from fact that we have a one person one vote system. If there would be true adherents to plutocracy, they would argue likely with the lines of person having votes based on how much the person pays taxes. That was the system before in Preussia, if I remember correctly.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    You're thinking too simplistically in terms of buying influence with direct payments. This is only a tiny fraction of the mean by which money can buy influence.

    Tax breaks for the wealthy, for example, are rarely just 'bought'. They're part of a package in right-wing governments which also includes populist legislation. Control of what constitutes popular opinion is disproportionately held by the wealthy.

    I’m just writing simplistically. My point is that if the State or King never made these advantages available in the first place, others would be unable to acquire them. In this sense it isn’t the private citizen who usurps democracy or the rule of law, it is whomever legislates and enforces it. The result is a two-tiered justice system, rigged elections, unequal application of law and so on.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    it isn’t the private citizen who usurps democracy or the rule of law, it is whomever legislates and enforces it.NOS4A2

    The legislature and enforcement bodies are constituted of private citizens and in most modern cases the rule makers are elected by private citizens in at least partial knowledge of exactly what they intend to do, so I'm not sure (apart from historically) what point you're making.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    The legislature and enforcement bodies are constituted of private citizens and in most modern cases the rule makers are elected by private citizens in at least partial knowledge of exactly what they intend to do, so I'm not sure (apart from historically) what point you're making.

    One becomes a public official when he is in a position of official authority conferred by a state. A private citizen has no such power. I’m saying the wealthy are the latter not the former; and it is the former who are usurping ideals like democracy and the rule of law.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    One becomes a public official when he is in a position of official authority conferred by a state. A private citizen has no such power.NOS4A2

    Are you suggesting private citizens are barred from being public officials?
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    Are you suggesting private citizens are barred from being public officials?

    In English we differentiate between those who hold official power conferred by the state—judges, bureaucrats, police etc.—and those who don’t by using those phrases.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    In English we differentiate between those who hold official power conferred by the state—judges, bureaucrats, police etc.—and those who don’t by using those phrases.NOS4A2

    The categorical distinction is beside the point. I'm not denying the it is possible to classify people on the basis of their job, but your categories are not mutually exclusive. The point is that those who are in positions of power are drawn from, and maintained in those position by, private citizens, so saying that power structures are not made by private citizens simply because they cease to be labelled as such when they are thus enabled is tautologous.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    The categorical distinction is beside the point. I'm not denying the it is possible to classify people on the basis of their job, but your categories are not mutually exclusive. The point is that those who are in positions of power are drawn from, and maintained in those position by, private citizens, so saying that power structures are not made by private citizens simply because they cease to be labelled as such when they are thus enabled is tautologous.

    I’m mostly speaking about the positions and structures and not necessarily the various people who occupy them. Anyone who occupies those positions are bestowed a power not available to those who don’t.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    I’m mostly speaking about the positions and structures and not necessarily the various people who occupy them. Anyone who occupies those positions are bestowed a power not available to those who don’t.NOS4A2

    Your original cclaim was...

    Private citizens, rich and poor, would not purchase power or advantage if there wasn’t first someone selling it.NOS4A2

    ... This is clearly not true because if private citizens wanted to make such a purchase, they would simply elect someone (or themselves stand for office) such as to make such an opportunity available.

    Likewise if private citizens did not want such opportunities to be available they would simply stand as or elect someone who would remove them.

    That such opportunities are available is therefore entirely in the bestowal of private citizens.
  • Maw
    2.7k
    Private citizens, rich and poor, would not purchase power or advantage if there wasn’t first someone selling it.NOS4A2

    If you have out of control lobbying and inherent structural corruption, don't blame it people that are rich.ssu

    Can't sell political access, favors, extortion, and other forms of corruption and misuses of Government power if there isn't a wealthy group who can afford to buy (and do so for their own material benefit/interest).
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    . This is clearly not true because if private citizens wanted to make such a purchase, they would simply elect someone (or themselves stand for office) such as to make such an opportunity available.

    That’s clearly not true because it is not easy for any one private citizen to get someone elected or to get elected himself.

    Only the state has the power to usurp ideals like democracy and the rule of law because they are in direct control of, and in power over, the structures of democracy and the rule of law. The private citizen has no such power.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    That’s clearly not true because it is not easy for any one private citizen to get someone elected or to get elected himself.NOS4A2

    What barriers are in the way then? Voting in an election couldn't be easier really. Standing for election is slightly harder but still no more so than the average business career.

    Only the state has the power to usurp ideals like democracy and the rule of law because they are in direct control of, and in power over, the structures of democracy and the rule of law. The private citizen has no such power.NOS4A2

    The private citizen elects the state in almost full knowledge of their intentions. How is that not power to affect such structures?
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    What barriers are in the way then? Voting in an election couldn't be easier really. Standing for election is slightly harder but still no more so than the average business career.

    Voting is one thing, but to “simply elect someone” is quite another. You can’t “simply elect” your neighbor for instance.

    The private citizen elects the state in almost full knowledge of their intentions. How is that not power to affect such structures?

    I’m only saying the private citizen has no control or power over the structures. In order to affect those structures they must vote people into those positions. I’m not saying they cannot vote people into those positions.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    I’m only saying the private citizen has no control or power over the structures. In order to affect those structures they must vote people into those positions. I’m not saying they cannot vote people into those positions.NOS4A2

    Right... So that constitutes control and power over the structures doesn't it. That they can vote people into positions of control, based on their intentions to exercise such control, constitutes de facto control.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    Right... So that constitutes control and power over the structures doesn't it. That they can vote people into positions of control, based on their intentions to exercise such control, constitutes de facto control.

    Let’s say you and I team up to affect democracy and the rule of law. Since we have de facto control over both, how would you and I go about doing that?
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    Let’s say you and I team up to affect democracy and the rule of law. Since we have de facto control over both, how would you and I go about doing that?NOS4A2

    Well, depending on our intent, we may have any easy or a hard time of it, but if we faced difficulties they would be mostly the result of the lack of support from other private citizens, not the obstruction of the current government.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    People aren't sceptical enough about the problem, go government has ever or will ever be outside of the influence of those they govern. Neither will the power or influence that people can exert be even across all social statuses and wealth levels. So, people point to Western democracy and see these issues and say 'ah-hah, so capitalism or democracy is imperfect" rather than see this as a problem that is essentially impossible to fix.

    There are things we can do to lessen the problem and we are which is why in the West things are better than basically everywhere else bar other successful advanced capitalism/democracy countries such as Japan and SK. Democracy in of itself is a political game - no government isn't a political game and people with great wealth, status, power and connections are going to have an easier time playing that game than others. As well as protecting themselves against the law and other similar government actions.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    It is an ideal...to PlatoGrre

    I don't know if I can agree that governance is an ideal. It can cast no physical shadows, and only phyiscal objects have ideal manifestations in the ideals of Plato. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my impressions. Concepts have no ideals according to Plato, as they can't be "made" into a physical object.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Anyways, my question then, appears to be a pretty straight forward one. If historically, divine rule is seen as a contradiction to the doctrine of the rule of law (and subsequently other incumbent ideals such as democracy, equality ect.) then under late-stage capitalism, can wealth/money be seen as a parallel to this idea of divine rule, and thus contradictory to the rule of law...Grre

    All authority derives from god. Whatever the ruler is, be it a person, a body, or the entire population, its mandate and power comes from god. There is only one contradiction: why did god allow godless powers to rise, such as communist rule? They persecuted the churches and religions. Now THAT's a contradiction. A contradiction in which god gives power to advocate the non-belief in god.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    But one has to look at anthropological history then and see how the Indigenous/nomadic pre-agricultural societies functioned well enough without either divine rule or any form of class stratification, let alone based on systems of wealth/property hoardingGrre

    Eyyeyyey... the entire hoarding behaviour has developed for the necessity of hoarding supplies and food for the tribe to survive over period of non-availability of supplies and food. It was present in the pre-agricultural societies much like in today's societies.

    And the devine rule... they definitely had some idea of a kind of theist mythology that gave them moral and legal guidance, so to speak.

    Your argument is based on non-true premises.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    (for lack of a better term to term to describe the conceptual parrarells between divine/unquestionable worship of a monotheistic god (and those deemed to represent Him) and that of wealth accumulation and the wealthy)?Grre

    Outside of the USA, no able-bodied government or country and their denizens believe any more that power derives from god. This is a stupid idea, if you don't mind my saying so. It is only the USA in the industrialized world that everything is permeated by religion and god-worship.

    It's time for all good men to get their heads out of their assholes, and realize that superstition has no place any longer in the world, other than in the minds of the fucking stupid.

    Please don't mind my language, but I got a bit riled by your assuming that god plays any role in the governance of the world. And you got this from law school. This is staggering the reasonable mind in biblical proportions.

    Sh'ma o Yisroel! Hear this, o Israel!
  • Grre
    196


    I have no belief in god and am a staunch atheist/nihilist personally-you misread my point. I was making objective observations socio-historically; that there are interesting parallels between the historical system of divinity/divine power, and those of todays wealth worship/wealth power. In its own way-the drive for insane wealth is its own superstition; merely hides the reality of our meaningless lives, albeit giving us some hedonistic enjoyment while we live them. Of course God plays no governance in the world, but I was commenting on how people have believed he has (or his "chosen" delegate)-and how this is patrolled contemporarily.

    Eyyeyyey... the entire hoarding behaviour has developed for the necessity of hoarding supplies and food for the tribe to survive over period of non-availability of supplies and food. It was present in the pre-agricultural societies much like in today's societies.

    I disagree, and again you misconstrue my meaning-while power structures may always play a role in human social behaviour, hoarding and the concept of private property is specifically linked to the development of agricultural/civilization...i am not saying that it never existed, surely greedy bastards have always existed, but it was a rare behaviour that wasn't encouraged by collective/tribal systems...much of the concept of elitism was established with Judeo-Christian theology, and carried itself onwards until the Industrial revolution drove the advancement of inane capitalist wealth accumulation instead....again to justify elitism and divine rule.
  • Grre
    196


    Also there is an important difference between the monotheistic/elitist religions like Judeo-Christanity and Islam, and the theistic/panthesitic religions of pre-agricultural and eastern societies. They are set on very different premises, and while both encourage and manipulate behaviour to some degree (via moral guidance like you said, among other things) they encourage and manipulate different kinds of behaviour that are relative to the different kinds of economic/social systems the different communities had...
  • Grre
    196


    I meant "ideal" in the common-day sense. Like, the concept of a rule of law, where all are actually equal and subject to the same law, is an ideal theory, but in practice not necessarily always the case. My anecdote to Plato was unconnected, I was merely giving some background to the development of the rule of law as a political theory.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.