Print

Print


On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Leigh Daboll wrote:

> Ed, you are making a very common mistake in your analysis.
>
> You've confused the RULE of Law (which is the absolute precept) with 
> the RULES of the Law, which are most always in a state of flux, with 
> which compliance is often in issue, and the breach of which requires 
> proof of or mitigation in respect to.

I understand the distinction.  While the initial reference to the role 
of barristers might indicate otherwise, my analysis accepts the premise 
that the Rule of Law is absolute.  My point is that governments must 
also respect the Rule of Law or risk losing the faith of the governed; 
the basis for their legitimacy.

But more to the current topic:  WHY did you "yank the rod"?  My ortho 
guy kind of indicated that mine was in there for good. I once asked him 
if I could recycle it when I croak, but he advised against taking it 
out even then.  Too expensive, he said, and, while titanium is 
expensive, the only legal market for second hand-leg rods was in a few 
third world countries.  It doesn't really bother me, and it's the only 
way I can tell if the airline security guys have their equipment turned 
on.

Ed


>
>> On Oct 16, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Leigh Daboll wrote:
>>
>>>  This is because the success of Rule of Law ultimately depends upon 
>>> it being a social contract that binds EVERYONE to ALL the rules in 
>>> force at any given time. Sorry, but Rule of Law is just about the 
>>> most black and white of all rules of law.
>>>
>>> Leigh
>>>
>>
>> In a society that absolute, what would be the role of a barrister?  
>> The Leviathan's excesses in enforcement would be excused as necessary 
>> in maintaining social order in a society that is populated by nasty 
>> and brutish individuals.
>>
>> Hobbesian interpretations of an absolutist social contract were long 
>> ago rejected by enlightened Americans and British alike.  The notion 
>> that man is inherently nasty and brutish has also been generally 
>> rejected by modern society.  Instead, man is unpredictable, usually 
>> good, but certainly not always.  The Rule of Law, not the rule of (a) 
>> man is necessary in that society to maintain order.  However, order 
>> must be defined, not only by the actions of the governed, but also by 
>> the behavior of the governors. Locke, speaking through Jefferson 
>> noted that human events could necessitate dissolving the social 
>> contract if the government violates the Rule of Law.  When 
>> governments violate moral standards and manipulate the Rule of Law to 
>> maintain their power, they invite the legitimate dissolution of the 
>> social contract.  Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington et. al. 
>> were rational men who risked the consequences of dissolving that 
>> contract.  In doing so, they also legitimized the application of 
>> moral standards to the measurement of the social contract. To be sure 
>> the framers had to edit Jefferson's words so as not to disturb their 
>> own moral transgressions (slavery), but their words and subsequent 
>> actions destroyed Hobbes' defense of absolutism.
>>
>> If any Lister was sent to Gitmo for ducking a rope, (assuming he is 
>> informed of what he is accused), I would hope that all, including 
>> Canadian barristers would rise up in their defense.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>>
>> To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>
> To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
>
>
Ed Malczyk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html