Post by Wayne Hall on Dec 12, 2023 2:06:09 GMT -5
On 12/11/2023 10:18 PM, Nikos Vako wrote:
> Does Natural Law recognise that some people can have the privilege to be above the law?
>
Reply:
I guess it doesn't, but how is this objection to be enforced?
Can the proliferation of lawlessness (immunity from prosecution) be halted without enlisting the collaboration of those whose privilege is threatened by it? Those who have enjoyed the privilege of being "above the law"? This is a real question, not a rhetorical question. Constitutions emerge from negotiations between conflicting parties. What will be the "other party [or parties?] in negotiation with the exponents of natural law?
Republican rhetoric pre-empts resolution of this question.
The Magna Carta emerged from negotiation.
For a start I think we should try to involve in our discussion people from Commonwealth countries, from the Netherlands and from Sweden.
Mrs Sotiriou has kindly agreed to convey this train of thought to Victoria Hislop, whose thoughts on the British monarchy can be a point of departure.
This is where the discussion left off six months ago: halva.proboards.com/post/2260
Regards,
Wayne Hall
Aegina
p.s. Here is the way "the media" deal with all this crap.
And here is a mainstream attitude on Victoria Hislop: elxis.com/victoria-hislop-honorary-greek-citizen/
W.
>
> From: wayne
> To: Catherine Evangelos Vivianne S Nikos
> Subject: Re: Do we agree?
>
>
> Great!
>
> W.
> On 12/7/2023 10:06 AM, Catherine wrote:
>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023, 5:23 am wayne,
>>
>> In the e-mail I sent yesterday to Mrs. Sotiriou I say: "Hereditary heads of state are typically 'above the law' but they surely cannot feel particularly pleased about the way this special privilege of theirs is being extended more and more broadly, while at the same time excluding the majority of society. The result is emasculation at both the base and the summit."
>>
>> Do we agree on this?
>>
>>
>
> Does Natural Law recognise that some people can have the privilege to be above the law?
>
Reply:
I guess it doesn't, but how is this objection to be enforced?
Can the proliferation of lawlessness (immunity from prosecution) be halted without enlisting the collaboration of those whose privilege is threatened by it? Those who have enjoyed the privilege of being "above the law"? This is a real question, not a rhetorical question. Constitutions emerge from negotiations between conflicting parties. What will be the "other party [or parties?] in negotiation with the exponents of natural law?
Republican rhetoric pre-empts resolution of this question.
The Magna Carta emerged from negotiation.
For a start I think we should try to involve in our discussion people from Commonwealth countries, from the Netherlands and from Sweden.
Mrs Sotiriou has kindly agreed to convey this train of thought to Victoria Hislop, whose thoughts on the British monarchy can be a point of departure.
This is where the discussion left off six months ago: halva.proboards.com/post/2260
Regards,
Wayne Hall
Aegina
p.s. Here is the way "the media" deal with all this crap.
And here is a mainstream attitude on Victoria Hislop: elxis.com/victoria-hislop-honorary-greek-citizen/
W.
>
> From: wayne
> To: Catherine Evangelos Vivianne S Nikos
> Subject: Re: Do we agree?
>
>
> Great!
>
> W.
> On 12/7/2023 10:06 AM, Catherine wrote:
>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023, 5:23 am wayne,
>>
>> In the e-mail I sent yesterday to Mrs. Sotiriou I say: "Hereditary heads of state are typically 'above the law' but they surely cannot feel particularly pleased about the way this special privilege of theirs is being extended more and more broadly, while at the same time excluding the majority of society. The result is emasculation at both the base and the summit."
>>
>> Do we agree on this?
>>
>>
>