[ofslidingfeet]

If a formal system isn't consistent, then it shouldn't work.

[ceejayoz]

If a legal system doesn’t have some flex, it doesn’t work.

[ofslidingfeet]

I have to say, I'm just struck with astonishment to encounter a truism about "flexible government" as a defense of autocratic despotism.

[ceejayoz]

That’s… a very odd reading of the above.

Legal systems are unfair if they’re too flexible. They’re also unfair if they’re too inflexible. Autocrats tend to use both extremes to their advantage; all flex for them, no flex for you.

One day ago you (flagged) commented “I hope [Trump] holds a military tribunal for every single person in the FBI”, so I’m not sure how genuine your astonishment is.

[ofslidingfeet]

You forgot to quote the part where I said the FBI won't stop blatantly interfering with elections.

[sneak]

No legal system ever in history meets the criteria for the definition of “formal system” that you seem to be using.

[ofslidingfeet]

I'm sure their attempt to ban music with a given nominal feature will be a total success with no complications then.

If the government can't make coherent laws, that is the government's problem.

[jagged-chisel]

It’s the citizens’ problem until enough of them can make it the government’s problem.

[ofslidingfeet]

Laws are tautologically in the domain of government.

edit: If the torture is unlawful, then the government is illegitimate. I'm not saying life doesn't suck; I'm just saying no actually citizens should not tolerate unjust laws just because making just laws is ~too hard~.

(I had to add this reply in an edit because this garbage ass gestapo run website is throttling my reply rate.)

[defrost]

There's rarely tort relief for torture, even less so in Russia repblics.

If Ramzan Kadyrov is properly serious about this declaration then it'll firmly remain a citizen's problem until the next great leap { forward | backward | sideways | down }.