Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Equality Before the Law

  1. #1
    Senior Member Carl_Rylander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 2nd, 2006 @ 01:25 PM
    Subrace
    Hallstatt/East Baltid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Politics
    Reactionary
    Religion
    Eastern Orthodox
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Equality Before the Law

    Is it possible to have equality before the law? We don't have it in the US now, and to the best of my knowledge we never have. For instance, a man can walk around in public on a 90 degree day with his shirt off, but a woman can't. An 8-year-old will receive different treatment for manslaughter than a 29-year old man. And so on.

    Slightly off-topic, two conservative friends of mine that I often speak with told me that although they both reject "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" for the noxious statism both imply, they nonetheless cling to the idea that "equality before the law," barring age, is a desirable thing. So I asked them, "since both of you guys already accept the idea that it would be undesirable for 11-year-olds to purchase firearms, drive automobiles and vote for largely biological reasons, why isn't it a desirable aim to limit the political freedom of negroes for biological reasons?" This was the rational for segregation. Both of my friends agreed that blacks differ biologically from whites, but that the difference isn't significant enough to warrant a return to state-sanctioned segregation laws. I didn't go into go into IQ or other race differences, because I could tell I had propelled their brain activity into uncharted territory. I expect them to be fully converted white racialists by the end of Spring.

  2. #2
    None
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, April 3rd, 2006 @ 09:17 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Posts
    1,347
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Equality Before the Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl_Rylander
    For instance, a man can walk around in public on a 90 degree day with his shirt off, but a woman can't.
    This is not true under the laws of the State of California. This type of law varies from state to state, region to region.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Equality Before the Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl_Rylander
    I expect them to be fully converted white racialists by the end of Spring.
    Good luck in that, I hope you succeed . You made good and valid points indeed, and your friends seem pretty open-minded from what you described, once again good luck.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Carl_Rylander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 2nd, 2006 @ 01:25 PM
    Subrace
    Hallstatt/East Baltid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Politics
    Reactionary
    Religion
    Eastern Orthodox
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Equality Before the Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigrun Christianson
    This is not true under the laws of the State of California. This type of law varies from state to state, region to region.
    Yeah, you're right, I totally forgot about that. I think they allow the same thing in Florida too.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Carl_Rylander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 2nd, 2006 @ 01:25 PM
    Subrace
    Hallstatt/East Baltid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Politics
    Reactionary
    Religion
    Eastern Orthodox
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Smile Re: Equality Before the Law

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hyperborean
    Good luck in that, I hope you succeed . You made good and valid points indeed, and your friends seem pretty open-minded from what you described, once again good luck.
    Thanks. It won't be long now. I just lent one of my friends a copy of J. P. Rushton's "Race, Evolution and Behavior."

  6. #6
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nordhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2006 @ 07:08 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Nordicist
    Posts
    3,153
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Equality Before the Law

    Objectively it should be IQ that you discriminate for, not necessarily race. I'm not sure a 120 IQ Negro would be less capable than a 100 IQ white. It's not the dark pigmentation that makes them stupid, it's their low average IQ. Of course if this did happen, more blacks would be discriminated against, therefore they might cry racism, but it wouldn't be absolute.

    Affirmative Action isn't even equality, it's favoritism. More less qualified blacks get hired. True equality would naturally see a racial disparity.

    In one example Rushton mentions that Negroes mature faster, so how the law deals with age should be different for them. Convicting them as adults at a younger age. I agree with that. Obviously this would create a lot of outrage from blacks, so of course it will never be done. We have to keep this unnatural society together.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Equality Before the Law

    It's certainly possible to have equality before the law, the question is whether it's desirable. One's conclusions about that obviously depend on one's ideology. Since contemporary North American society is dominated by a liberal ideology that favours multiculturalism, people simply take it as given that equality before the law is desirable.

    Under current circumstances, in North America, trying to promote a revival of segregationism (in the sense of whites can vote, blacks etc. can't) is beating a dead horse. I see no prospect that anything of the sort is going to happen, and if it were attempted, it would result in civil war - with no guarantee that 'racialist' whites would win, by the way. A more realistically attainable objective for the short-to-medium term would be to strongly favour equality before the law in public, and then use that position as a basis for ending affirmative action programs. If this were done, the natural inequality between races would once again show itself in substantive outcomes, but everyone would see this was the result of differing natural abilities, not formal legal discrimination, and such a policy would command widespread popular support. IMHO that's the realistically attainable objective to work towards.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Equality Before the Law

    No, equality before the law is impossible. Someone has to make the law. Exceptions happen - situations and events which the law cannot predict and account for prior to it happening. At this point, there is a general change from law (general rule) to decree (emergency powers). Someone has to decide when an exception exists, and what is to be done. That person is the sovereign. Law are the rules backed by force imposed on a group by an elite depending on the decision of the sovereign. The State is the organisation which does this. Someone has to break rules in order to enforce them, hence the State has a monopoly on violence.



    Carl Schmitt is great.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Equality Before the Law

    I think we need to clarify what we are talking about when we use the phrase 'equality before the law.' Here is the definition I am using, from Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. 1999 (West Group, St. Paul, MN):

    "equality before the law. The status or condition of being treated fairly according to regularly-established norms of justice; esp., in British constitutional law, the notion that all persons are subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts, that officials and others are not exempt from the general duty of obedience to the law, that discretionary governmental powers must not be abused, and that the task of superintending the operation of law rests with an impartial, independent judiciary."

    Thus, 'equality before the law' exisits in every western liberal democracy, in a formal, legal sense, which is what I am talking about. Legislators and judges who make and determine the content of the law are still formally subject to the law itself; they are not exempt from it or above it in a formal way. The content of the law may serve the interests of a social elite, but that does not mean they are exempt from the law's jurisdiction in a way that violates the principle of formal 'equality before the law'. Futhermore, the law is applied equally to all 'persons' in the sense that, except for the distinction based on age (minors versus adults), no distinction is made between persons with regard to the legal rights or responsibilites that attach to them. There is not one set of laws for one social or ethnic group, and another for another, in a British originated legal system based on the 'equality before the law' principle which does not define legal 'personhood' according to race or other criteria apart from age.

    Based on this definition, and within a common law context, it is also not accurate to say that there must be a change from general rule to emergency powers to deal with unpredicted events and situations. It is the role of the common law courts to interpret and apply the law, statutory and common, in specific situations, including those that were unanticipated. If the legislature does not like the courts' interpretation, it can (subject to the constitution) change the content of the law through legislation. That does not amount to an exercise of emergency powers. The state does NOT break the rules in order to enforce them under this system, rather legislators make or change the textual content of the rule, the executive enforces compliance with the rule, but that enforcement is subject to the interpretation by the judiciary of how the rule is to apply to particular cases, based on precedent and the principles of equity (where applicable). The 'state' is in fact an abstraction, it is governmental officials who make or break rules. The rules apply to them as to everyone else. Making or changing, enforcing, and interpreting the rules are not the same as violating them.

    It is not legally meaningful to say the 'sovereign' cannot be bound by its own rules, because the 'sovereign' is only an abstract concept. Rules apply to tangible persons and institutions, and under this British-originated common law and constitutional system, the legal rules apply to every individual person equally, while constitutional rules apply to specific law making, enforcing or interpreting institutions and delimit their jurisdiction.

    Schmitt is a continental, civil law jurist and one should be careful transferring his legal analysis to a common law system. Notions of the sovereign = the "state" on some abstract level don't apply in the common law countries. Technically, the parliament as an institution is sovereign in the UK (the monarch exercising sovereignty through parliament), while in the US the people are "sovereign". But both parliament and people are bound by constitutional and legal rule respectively. Continental legal notions about the 'state' and 'sovereignty' don't easily transfer to the common law context, Hobbes' exposition on the 'state' equaling the 'sovereign' notwithstanding.

    So, I stand by my position. Equality before the law is possible, in the sense outlined above; the question is whether it is desirable. What has changed over the past few centuries is the definition of a legal 'person' to whom rights and responsibilities apply equally. It used to be only adult white males, then it became all adults. Now, however, formal inequality before the law, with respect to employment and school positions, has been instituted through affirmative action, to the disadvantage of whites. The question I touched on in my earlier post is how to be best go about reversing that development.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: Equality Before the Law

    The separation of the judiciary and the governmental power has been unsuccessful.

    We must get away from legal abstractions and put the Law back in the hands of the Leader.

    Law will then be synonymous with the Will of the Leader; no distinction to be made between the two.

    And then we can "kill all the lawyers", as Shakespeare said.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do You Believe in Equality Between Men and Women?
    By Mrs. Lyfing in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 400
    Last Post: Sunday, January 13th, 2019, 11:40 PM
  2. Affirmative Action = Potemkin Equality
    By Storm Saxon in forum The United States
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, February 26th, 2012, 05:46 PM
  3. The Myth of Equality
    By Blutwölfin in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 02:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •