Rule by law?

[Psy]

The Political Spectrum Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ) Is a youtube video that tries to divide forms of government into rule by a few, rule by many and rule by law.

Other then the horrible view of anarchy in the film, I find a huge logical law. It states that the law itself can rule, it ignores that laws are created by people. Currently the law is created by a minority thus the law exists for their interests. It also ignores the fact laws can also be created by democracies thus the lynch mob example in the film in a true democracy with laws would be the militia following rules voted on earlier by a larger body.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Holy shit. Can you say bias?
I rofl'd my ass off when it placed Reagan as a peaceful centrist and also that anarchists are actually power-hungry conspirators. :lol:


Also, while we're on the topic, I hate the whole Left/Right view of politics. It simply doesn't work like that, at least not anymore.
That presentation viewed the left and right in terms of more government and less government, respectively. According to that, anarchism is far-right.

It's almost more of a circle, really.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Everyday [email protected] 12, 2007 03:21 pm
Holy shit. Can you say bias?
I rofl'd my ass off when it placed Reagan as a peaceful centrist and also that anarchists are actually power-hungry conspirators. :lol:


Also, while we're on the topic, I hate the whole Left/Right view of politics. It simply doesn't work like that, at least not anymore.
That presentation viewed the left and right in terms of more government and less government, respectively. According to that, anarchism is far-right.

It's almost more of a circle, really.
I personally view the political spectrum as two axes, one economic and one social, ranging from more economic/social freedoms to less economic/social freedoms.

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+November 12, 2007 10:28 am--> (Red_Anarchist @ November 12, 2007 10:28 am)
Everyday [email protected] 12, 2007 03:21 pm
Holy shit. Can you say bias?
I rofl'd my ass off when it placed Reagan as a peaceful centrist and also that anarchists are actually power-hungry conspirators. :lol:


Also, while we're on the topic, I hate the whole Left/Right view of politics. It simply doesn't work like that, at least not anymore.
That presentation viewed the left and right in terms of more government and less government, respectively. According to that, anarchism is far-right.

It's almost more of a circle, really.
I personally view the political spectrum as two axes, one economic and one social, ranging from more economic/social freedoms to less economic/social freedoms. [/b]
I view it this way. So there are two buckets of water, one says Social and one says Economic. The bucket filled to the top means Lefty/Liberal, filled to the middle means Centrist, and the bottom means Right/Conservative.

[Red Scare]

This video is made by Moderates who use stereotypes against democracy and anarchy. This is a propaganda video.

[RedStaredRevolution]

wow you guys, i never knew that anarchism=oligarchy?!? :P

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:20 pm
wow you guys, i never knew that anarchism=oligarchy?!? :P
:lol: It also said that Lenin was an anarchist!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Conservative bullshit.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Whoever made this video has an extremely poor understanding of politics, history and law. The idea put forth that in a Republic the government is restrained by law is misleading, considering the poor treatment of the issue of the Constitution. And although it wasn't explicitly claimed, I agree that there was an implicit claim that law can rule by itself, without the backing of the government or the people. While this is theoretically possible (not the case, but possible) in civil matters such as tort law, where two individuals argue against each other under the auspices of the judiciary, it cannot be applied to the more relevant area of criminal law, in which the state takes a case against an individual, effectively utilizing the law for its own ends (this law, however, is bound by the Constitution [except in Britain] which can be amended by the people). If the law itself was the sole ruler of a nation then the state could not take action against individuals, but without this action there would be no body to give materiality to the law (the law in itself is not an independent, material entity, even in legal terms, and thus cannot be party to a case). Also, for an American propaganda movie (which it clearly was), they sure didn't seem to have a clue what the founding fathers were actually trying to achieve with their version of a Republic; namely the separation of powers.