"In essence, it means that we are ruled by the law of the people, not by the arbitrary law of a superior individual or power group operating above the law."

So if we are ruled by the law of the people, why is it the people arent allowed to know the precise details about trade and financial discussions that relate to the secretive TPP and the G7?

The Rule of Law - Just exactly does it mean again?

Democracy isnt as perfect as what you would like to think it is.
"Democracy" allowed our glorious leaders to sell us out into the private banking system that issues money as a loan with interest.

And the money owed in debt is always greater than the amount of currency issued.
So for one thats a trap that enslaves entire nations to the private banking system.

Next, Democracy allows the 51% to take away the rights of the 49%
So all you have to do is influence a certain group of people on an issue to change a law.

Problem, Reaction, Solution.
Talking Point, Reaction, Solution.

And how democratic is Democracy when PMs need to sell out for campaign contributions?
Then it just comes down to whoever can pay.

Democracy's a great tool if you want to strip a nation of its natural resources, infrastructure and wealth by selling off the assets to foreign private interests.
You can't do that under any other type of government.

I believe in democracy, but its nowhere near perfect.
And its foolish to think it is.

Under genuine democracies, where the power to govern is derived from the voting public, there is the ultimate rule of public trust law. in the Philippines and India that law has been used occasionally to ensure the right of next generation to inherit the environment from the current generation unimpaired.

In the USA, using public trust law, foreshore on navigable water is protected from development for non public purposes.

Under Australia's Constitutional Monarchy the fiction that power flows down from above is maintained. Mining companies are allowed to alienate natural water, both surface and in aquifers, and is not required to return open cut mining areas to anywhere near the pre-mining state. If public trust law was available in this country and enforced that could not be permitted.

We need a republic where it is accepted that we the people are sovereign and where exemptions from environmental laws are not granted. Professor Mary Wood's book, Nature's Trust, is worth reading on this subject.

Notice how
1. most discussions of government talk about the State, but never question the fixed idea of the State itself?
2. when they do question it, they always fall back to fictions, for example that the State comes into existence from a "social contract" (that doesn't exist), or that the State "represents the people" (better than the people represent themselves).

Here is another such fiction.

"This concept of governance derives from ancient times when a leader was chosen (elected) for his strength and leadership qualities, not as a ruler with superior power, but as the first of equals."

It is fiction to assert that, pre-1215, kings or leaders were "chosen (elected)".

The essence of the error is to confound non-consensual social relations based on aggression and expropriation on one side and obedience or resignation on the other, with social relations based on consent. The same fiction is then carried into modern times, as shown by Foyle's post.

However it remains a fiction, and this invalidates the author's and Foyle's theories of the rule of law.

"As Charles I was to assert in 1660..."

BTW you mean Charles II. The first lost his head in 1649 or so they say.

It means nothing!

There are people who like to assert themselves over others by force.
The brave and honest among them offer no excuses.
Those who have no integrity, however, offer nonsensical excuses such as "rule of law".
Anyone who has eyes can see those predators for what they are behind that thin veneer.

An interesting piece, thank you.

Funny that some seem not to want a rule of law at all.