A rather wise man once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
I would qualify that - liberal democracy is probably the worst form, except for all the others. Liberal democracy means that everyone is treated the same, and is predicated on certain thoughts.
First, everyone is treated the same, because everyone is the same in abilities; liberal democracy, in its fundamental form, ignores difference. Worse, it puts those who simply are not able at the mercy of those who might take advantage of them simply because they can.
Core to this idea is the rule of law. Everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law, depending on the type and severity of crime they commit. In other words, someone who commits mortgage fraud will be treated much differently than someone who participates in a murder, or say, genocide.
In any case, the difference between these crimes must be taken into account. Ultimately, however, both crimes can be equally detrimental.
For example, say there's a housing bubble caused the the ease of which mortgages and loans are obtained - the temptation for many is too much to avoid acquiring properties to fix 'n flip. The housing bubble results in many being priced out of housing which they would otherwise be able to afford in a "normal" economy. Or, someone who didn't commit mortgage fraud can't keep up with inflating payments and suddenly finds him-/herself homeless due to foreclosure by a lender.
The problem with liberal democracy is that, over time, people have come to take their freedoms for granted, and have forgotten that, with freedom comes responsibility. If you acquire a mortgage or 10 fraudulently, you have a responsibility to pay those back. Likewise, if you murder someone, you have a responsibility to pay for that crime. The cost of that responsibility is based on the law of the day.
So the question is, should those who commit crimes be punished to the fullest extent of the law? This author would say yes, with a caveat: due process must be followed. The rule of law is paramount in any democratic society, and when we lose the rule of law, we lose everything. This is what happened with some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity in history: the rule of law was flouted in that those who seized power (whether legally or illegally) bent the law to their own ends.
And this is where liberal democracy fails its citizens: it does not question the rule of law when the law itself is morally reprehensible.
However, equating mortgage fraud with murder, or say, genocide, is not appropriate either. And when this is done, it devalues the importance of the more serious crime.
A second principle of liberal democracy is the idea of privacy. Privacy is fundamentally important especially in relation to the rule of law. Privacy ensures that the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" can be upheld. Like other tenets of liberal democracy, privacy is also taken for granted, and it is becoming clear that the individual must take certain steps, indeed has a certain responsibility to the self, to keep that privacy, if it is valued.
The point it, democracy without acknowledging responsibility is destined to fail.
So my question to you: is someone who flaunts his allegedly illegal activities in a public forum denied the due process of the rule of law?
A further question: should this person be held for all that he says/does/writes in a public forum?
Open for discussion.
I would qualify that - liberal democracy is probably the worst form, except for all the others. Liberal democracy means that everyone is treated the same, and is predicated on certain thoughts.
First, everyone is treated the same, because everyone is the same in abilities; liberal democracy, in its fundamental form, ignores difference. Worse, it puts those who simply are not able at the mercy of those who might take advantage of them simply because they can.
Core to this idea is the rule of law. Everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law, depending on the type and severity of crime they commit. In other words, someone who commits mortgage fraud will be treated much differently than someone who participates in a murder, or say, genocide.
In any case, the difference between these crimes must be taken into account. Ultimately, however, both crimes can be equally detrimental.
For example, say there's a housing bubble caused the the ease of which mortgages and loans are obtained - the temptation for many is too much to avoid acquiring properties to fix 'n flip. The housing bubble results in many being priced out of housing which they would otherwise be able to afford in a "normal" economy. Or, someone who didn't commit mortgage fraud can't keep up with inflating payments and suddenly finds him-/herself homeless due to foreclosure by a lender.
The problem with liberal democracy is that, over time, people have come to take their freedoms for granted, and have forgotten that, with freedom comes responsibility. If you acquire a mortgage or 10 fraudulently, you have a responsibility to pay those back. Likewise, if you murder someone, you have a responsibility to pay for that crime. The cost of that responsibility is based on the law of the day.
So the question is, should those who commit crimes be punished to the fullest extent of the law? This author would say yes, with a caveat: due process must be followed. The rule of law is paramount in any democratic society, and when we lose the rule of law, we lose everything. This is what happened with some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity in history: the rule of law was flouted in that those who seized power (whether legally or illegally) bent the law to their own ends.
And this is where liberal democracy fails its citizens: it does not question the rule of law when the law itself is morally reprehensible.
However, equating mortgage fraud with murder, or say, genocide, is not appropriate either. And when this is done, it devalues the importance of the more serious crime.
A second principle of liberal democracy is the idea of privacy. Privacy is fundamentally important especially in relation to the rule of law. Privacy ensures that the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" can be upheld. Like other tenets of liberal democracy, privacy is also taken for granted, and it is becoming clear that the individual must take certain steps, indeed has a certain responsibility to the self, to keep that privacy, if it is valued.
The point it, democracy without acknowledging responsibility is destined to fail.
So my question to you: is someone who flaunts his allegedly illegal activities in a public forum denied the due process of the rule of law?
A further question: should this person be held for all that he says/does/writes in a public forum?
Open for discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment