Asterix, the Gall - The Strange History of Linux and Trademarks

This kind of silliness is why, when someone solemnly intones 'we are governed by the rule of law' I pee myself laughing. How can anyone take the law seriously when it's so pliable? When 'tenacity and wealth of the trademark holder' determine outcomes?

You would _love_ this talk by Prof. Hanse Hermann Hoppe of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas:

World War I as the End of Civilization http://mm.mises.org/mp3/war/war8a.mp3

My personal take on the "rule of law" ruberic, is that how can there be "rule of law" when tomorrow something could be illegal which is perfectly legal today, and something could be legal which is completely illegal today?

There is no way to know which.

When the law was "don't hurt anyone", it was easy to say "ignorance of the law is no defense." Now, with entire libraries full of laws and no one who can know them all, "ignorance of the law" is the natural condition.

It takes a government to create chaos. Anarchy is stable and sedate in any comparison!

Rule of Law doesn't imply conforming to immutable statutes written on paper, or that the Law won't change from time to time.

With a monarchy, you're subject to the whims of the monarch. With a theocracy, you're subject to the whims of the priest (or priestess).

The "Rule of Law" simply means that no one, not even the high head cheeze, is above, or outside, subjugation under the law - whatever the style of law happens to be, be it Common, Napoleanic, Sharia, or whatever.

> The "Rule of Law" simply means that no one, not even the high head cheeze, is above, or outside, subjugation under the law

Well, unless they change or ignore the law ;-)

What makes 'rule of law' a joke to me is not that laws change, but when there is an absence of consistent interpretation and application. So it comes down to whoever is best-funded and most stubborn, in both civil and criminal law, but especially civil.

With Signing Statements, we are subject to the whims of the President.

Same thing, different name.

What's the difference between a monarchy and a presidency? The President has no incentive to leave anything of value to his successor.

> no incentive

More like 'no means to', but, point taken.

"More like 'no means to', but, point taken."

I disagree only because "means" and "incentive" I consider to be different issues entirely.

It is possible to _not_ spend, to _not_ endorse un-funded mandates, to _not_ put programs into place which sound good on TV but must be paid for by successors whether they like them or not, to _not_ inflate the currency, etc.

The "means" are there, but the "incentive" is entirely in the opposite direction: to do all these "means" which create long-term damage for short-term political gain.

Now, don't get me wrong. It may very well be an example of this incentive problem that creates an environment where it seems like there is no workable means. After all, "workable" is the operative term. The incentives could easily be so powerful that there are no means available that wouldn't create such short-term political damage as to be, in fact, unworkable at all.

So why does Ron Paul keep getting re-elected? We'll never know.

"means" and "incentive" I consider to be different issues entirely.

Absolutely. 'Incentive' to acquire is always there, you can only take away the 'means' to acquire. Incentive as a control is entirely dependant on the guy in power, could be a George, but few if any are Washington.