Philosophical Question on Rule of Law and What that means now [View All]

[lala_rawraw]

The government and the people operate via a contract that both are expected to uphold. What then happens if the government does not uphold its part of the social contract? Does that make the contract null and void, hence the citizens need not uphold it either? Because in a democracy a one way legal structure, in other words, the one aimed only at the citizens is not really doable. Either the system of governance is recognized officially for being something other than Democracy or if the structure is still recognized as a Democracy, then the people need not be obligated to the contract.

In other words, let's say you are arrested for drunk driving (not that I support this in any way, but just example for this discussion), how can you be tried for something that the President, a citizen of the same country, is not tried?

Or, if the government steals from the citizens, in let's say the ballpark of about $9 billion, then on what grounds must the people pay their taxes? If the IRS would attempt to audit or arrest someone, would it not be just and fair to argue that because the government does not uphold its financial obligations to the people and furthermore, because it actually steals from the people and lies about it, should the IRS not be looking into the stolen $ 9 billion, instead of, let's say your 2k or something?

Really, in a court of law, everything is precedent at some point. I would think that because the government is above the law, that fact alone, is enough to say "there is no law". Again, just philosophical musings. Any thoughts?