http://www.answers.com/topic/rule-of-law

Furthermore, where exactly do you (and others) come up with the notion that killing Tiller is a transgression of “the rule of law”?

Did some government agents act in some arbitrary fashion against Tiller? No, if anything, Tiller has been able to continue his murderous activity precisely because of a failure of “the rule of law” and triumph of “the rule of man”. Assuming, as seems probable, that Scott Whatshisname isn’t simply a random crackpot, but actually and deliberatley targeted Tiller because of Tiller’s abortion activities, it would be reasonable to conclude that Scott “W” is a vigilante.

What’s the provenance of that word, “vigilante”? Look it up, and you’ll see that historically, vigilantism came into being precisely because of a failure of “the rule of law.” That abuses have been committed under the rubric of vigilantism is certainly true, just as abuses have been committed under the “rule of law.” The upshot is, vigilantism itself is morally neutral, unless, of course, one finds the notion of people acting as independent moral agents (i.e., individuals who have liberty) offensive. I don’t.

Before continuing, I encourage you to consider the arguments made in our Declaration of Independence, and simply substitute “Judges” for “King George”. Clearly, the folks who founded this country felt that there was a point where “unlawful action” was justified. Whether or not Scott “W”’s actions fall into that category is another matter, but unless one accepts that an individual’s actions CAN fall into that category, one can never be more than a subject, rather than a citizen.

Grace and peace,

BD

It was our “disrespect” for “the law” that brought this country into being, violently. The fellas who signed the Declaration of Independence were committing high treason, not bowing to “the rule of law”. A slavish devotion to “the rule of law” is a tyrant’s dream.