I cannot believe that there have been 1,236,604 Iraqi deaths in this war.
I think that I cannot agree with Milton Friedman that rules imply freedom, and discretion
implies tyranny. I would think that he at least qualified it to the actions of government. But
this will not do for me. If I may try to apply this to courtroom proceedings, "rule-based"
freedom would mean, in fact apparently does mean for those running our courtrooms, that
the judge simply applies a fomula to conclude what law applies, and instructs the jury to
simply decide whether the facts presented at trial indicate whether, in fact, the crime has
been committed. One major problem is that, with "stare decicis," we have the
problem of Procrutes.
I illustrate with my own pending case of "trespass after warning." First, let me say that an
ordinary reading of Chapter 810 of the Florida Code does not admit an indefinite "trespass warning".
The code merely says that someone can be arrested if he refuses to leave when warned. If the
writers of the code meant to give the property owner license to forbid a person from returning, then
the code would have stated that the trespasser can be arrested if he "returns" to the property. Our
judges apparently are not given the discretion to read the code, they are simply taught to "apply the
law as it has always been applied." In the case of the French prosecutor, she may be applying the law
in a novel way, yet she is still simply following a rule.
Concerning the US Constitution, I believe there is an old falacy concerning what I guess I regard as
merely a Shibboleth: We are a society of laws and not men. I have always liked Hayek distinction
between Law and Legislation, yet he is woefully inadequate in defining what Law is. In fact he appears to
glory in essentially not having a definition for Law. He insists that he is not teleological in his understanding
of Law, yet I perceive that he has a very concrete idea of Law: the judge-made English Common Law. I
in contrast have the Law of Moses as the paradigm that our Legislation approximates. I firmly believe that
Jesus statement is true: Not one jot or one title shall pass away, until all be fulfilled. The next step in the
evolution of American Law must be the abolition of the entire CRIMINAL code. The very idea of "crime
against the state" is simply an anachronism -- little different than "crime against the crown."

Re: John Mark Coney

You can't or won't believe the number of dead Iraqis? How many dead would you believe?
As for the rule of law, our country and people, enamored of our illusory power, believe that might makes right. Fortunately, with our imploding economy, this arrogance too shall pass. Pride and arrogance cometh before the fall.

Michael: I perceive that we agree on the apparent fact that "rule of law" seems to mean the rule of
the one who wears the badge and carries his firearm openly. I always think of the proverbial hillbilly
woman who says" I'm going to call the law on you!
The headline of today's New York Post is: 'Drunk" COP back on the streets: THREE CHEERS! At
first, I thought it was good satire. Then, when I started to read the story of Commission Kelly apologising
for taking him off the street, I thought, well, the co-authors chose a clever double-meaning for the headline.
After some consideration, I believe now that I am being generous with Rupert's editors.