On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:22:38 -0700 From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com> To: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
I understand, but my point was that at some point the system of "law" became simply a system of supplicating the masses and no longer serves justice. When the system of law ceases to be a system of law and becomes of system of corruption I no longer refer to it as law. Important Orwellian distinction. Never let the bastards control the definitions and language.
"Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand-rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."
From "The Road to Surfdom," F.A. Hayek, as quoted from the classical exposition by A. V. Dicey in "The Law of the Constitution" (8th ed.), p. 198, the Rule of Law "means, in the first place the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of government."
Steve: Thanks. I think you agreed with me there. I agree with Hayek's observation. When the government is no longer bound by the "Rule of Law" (c), it is no longer a rule of law, but becomes a capricious set of miscellany designed to entrap (when necessary) those who would oppose the priveledged. (those with access to large amounts of cash, lawyers, connections etc) Jim Burnes