An example would be the Napoleonic code. Even after Napoleon Bonaparte declared himself Emperor of France, he established the Napoleonic code which declared that the same laws that applied to the commons also applied to bourgeoisie and even the emperor, himself.

Of course, the same thing that happens here in the states happened in post-revolutionary France, that those with means could muster a defense where those without could not, so the law could be circumvented with money and resources (and sometimes the power of force).

So it's a mess.

The rule of law -- that the law is applied equally to everyone, -- is an ideal that societies strive for, typically only with limited success. The challenges include yoking in those with ostentatious means who are able to escape justice or hire strong defenders, and elevating the destitute and the contemptible^†^ so that they can get true due process. In the US, since convictions advance careers (contrast, fair adjudications), prosecutors and judges tend to favor false convictions over ruling out innocent suspects brought to trial, which has created the plea-bargain epidemic throughout the US today.

† Suspects of heinous crimes often end up the subject of abuse, or of illegal search. The only way we enforce the protections provided by the fourth and fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States (Wikipedia: Fourth; Fifth ) is by penalizing the state by allowing mistreated suspects to go free. And it's particularly odious when we know that the walking perp is guilty of baking children into pies. (We've also seen potential misuse of this when the justice system doesn't really want to convict someone, say a favored entertainer who is guilty of sexual misconduct. Ooops. )

As a result, police techniques that would constitute an illegal search become legal by precedent for having been used to bring in the most contemptible criminals and are then applied to people guilty of possession of controlled substances, and we end up with SWAT raids on black-community barbershops for their haircut licenses being out of order. We also get people convicted for eating jelly donuts because the $2 field drug test that reacts to cocaine also reacts to glazed sugar.

So rule of law is not only difficult to attain and preserve, but it very quickly deteriorates.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I'm talking about laws formed from the democratic social contract. In a state of nature, there is no law except absolute freedom to do whatever is necessary to survive. You could reciprocate kindness, or take through violence. It's your fundamental right to do what you want, but also the fundamental right of everyone else too, including taking your freedom.

The social contract of a sovereign state has you giving up that fundamental right to a state that monopolizes violence. So long as you want it to protect you, you play by the laws out of self interest. The barrel of a gun remains should anyone step out of line, but you want to obey so others do too.

A democratic system is supposed to allow everyone to have a say in shaping it by popular demand. Ideally, we have final say in shaping the rules that bind us all. The more democratic, the more breaking the law overrides the will of others. Stop being bound? Stop getting protected.

America was never really a democracy for everyone; never once giving everyone a say. However, under Trump, not even party members will have a say anymore. If they're not loyal, they're out. That's how his fascism will operate. Unless you have the power to threaten his control, you will have no say whatsoever. IF you do have that power, Trump looks to take it away from you so no one can ever override his will.

The rich don't know it yet, but under Trump, they're giving up almost all of their power. So long as he has loyalists to operate the state, their property isn't really theirs. The liberal democracy protected their property, but now that protection is far more conditional.

So now, the state literally only serves a single person's will. Fascism isn't a contractual state, but a state of nature. Anarchy with a powerful monster on the lose. The rule of law is just the will of that monster, with no consistency beyond "I WIN!!!"

This is actually worse than feudal times where the state didn't have much reason to bother people, as they were less dependent on complex supply chains. The rich better get knights to protect their castles, cause this empire is not under their control.