Rule of Law or Rule of the person-which is more important?

johne · #1 02-16-2008, 06:58 AM

A great deal has been posted here in various forums that have led me to pose this question to the members.
Which do you think is more important to the DR (stability, growth, corruption, easing of poverty), The Rule of Law or the rule of the person? Then take it a step further and answer which is more important to you as an individual living the life as an ex-pat in the DR.

john

Lambada · #2 02-17-2008, 12:43 AM

The day that the masses have had enough of being exploited & decide to do something about it will not be a comfortable time for me personally (or probably for any expat) but my heart will be with them. I just wish we could get more equitable wealth distribution without violence but I have my doubts. Is this what you meant?

cobraboy · #3 02-17-2008, 09:31 AM

The two are different: the Law for a group vs. individual sovereignty.

The goal is a balance between the two.

Any time someone proposes something "for the greater good", someone will be losing some sovereignty, but assuredly not the one uttering the words.

johne · #4 02-17-2008, 12:20 PM

Sometime when I have a bit more time I am going to re-introduce this thread or make it part of a response in a posting. I can see, judging from the number of responses I am really not getting my question across properly. My fault. The next time I think I'll post the definitions first then ask the question.
Sorry,
JOHN

Chris · #5 02-17-2008, 12:30 PM

johne, I really don't want you to be dissappointed, so, here it is for me ..

The mountains, the forest, the ocean, the water and the people are ultimately inseparable! I've never subscribed to the 'rule of law'. When life is lived in harmony, the rule of law may be almost non-existent. No, I'm not talking utopia, I'm talking common sense and balanced living.

johne · #6 02-17-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

johne, I really don't want you to be dissappointed, so, here it is for me ..

The mountains, the forest, the ocean, the water and the people are ultimately inseparable! I've never subscribed to the 'rule of law'. When life is lived in harmony, the rule of law may be almost non-existent. No, I'm not talking utopia, I'm talking common sense and balanced living.

Chris--No, I am not disappointed-don't get me wrong--I really don't think I positioned the question right (or at the right time and place)
Thanks for your response--I'll try it at another more appropriate occasion
JOHN

sollie · #7 02-17-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johne

Chris--No, I am not disappointed-don't get me wrong--I really don't think I positioned the question right (or at the right time and place)
Thanks for your response--I'll try it at another more appropriate occasion
JOHN

John,

The time and place were fine but your question needs a bit of tweaking/clarification. The premise was interesting and I almost asked for clarification when I first read it, so please, break it down concisely. I'm sure there is a good discussion there.

Sollie

johne · #8 02-17-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sollie

John,

The time and place were fine but your question needs a bit of tweaking/clarification. The premise was interesting and I almost asked for clarification when I first read it, so please, break it down concisely. I'm sure there is a good discussion there.

Sollie

Thanks Sollie. That's what I meant about when I have a bit more time-will clarify.

juanj · #9 02-22-2008, 11:25 AM

The Rule of Law or the rule of the person?

By any of the infinite approaches and definitions plausible, there would remain constant: who would create a given "rule of law"; as well as who the "person" might be. Seems to avoid direct answer doesnt it? True. And there are many "flavors" to interpretations and theories on the question (some "clasic": philosophical/theological, for example, etc.).

However, given my experience in the DR (and other places) - whatever paradigm or ethos is employed to answer: "Which do you think is more important to the DR", we would be left with more unanswered questions when we put to practice what we articulate as being "more important" - that is simply due to our very natures! And since the HUMAN ELEMENT (to copy a phrase) must be a given/foundation to any premise of "bahavior/law/value", etc , then requisite to applying "rule of law" vs. "person", we must realize the delimma will always be consistent enforcement.

So, I would chose "Rule of Law". I would chose that fully-well knowing that with human nature, there can never be any panacean application to those types of fundamental questions; but I would chose that with the confidence of uniform application.

Of course, the pandoras box question is: who would then create the laws that become "the rule of law"?

cobraboy · #10 02-22-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

johne, I really don't want you to be dissappointed, so, here it is for me ..

The mountains, the forest, the ocean, the water and the people are ultimately inseparable! I've never subscribed to the 'rule of law'. When life is lived in harmony, the rule of law may be almost non-existent. No, I'm not talking utopia, I'm talking common sense and balanced living.

Where is this? I wanna move there.

Unfortunately, prisons are full of folks who don't believe in the Rule of Law, too...