I really want to steer again

It is boring for the ruler to live in Europe. After absolutism was overthrown there in the 18th century, power, after a few more historical steps, turned into an ordinary task - strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the law. Strictly speaking, the principle of the rule of law annuls power as such, as an independent institution, turning it into a purely service function. There is no longer any power in itself - there is a law and its implementation. The authorities are the servants of the law, not its embodiment.

But there is also a provision on unconditional "obedience to the authorities." What does it mean in this case, again in Europe? If a representative of authority executes the law, then he should be obeyed. But what if he doesn't follow the law? One can obey or disobey only the law, but not the representatives of the authorities in the case when they go beyond their legal powers and act on the basis of arbitrariness. It follows from this that the authorities can and should be disobeyed, if at the same time you comply with the law, and the representatives of the authorities do not comply with the law. In the event that the authorities themselves do not comply with the law, there is nothing left but to consider them bandits armed to the teeth, who are subject to trial and severe punishment.

But that's in Europe. In other places, the law, as we see, is violated, the functions of the legislator are appropriated by groups of criminals, and on the basis of newly adopted laws, criminal laws invented by criminals are enforced. In what position do the victims then fall, you and I, who are not members of any criminal clan? On the one hand, by submitting to the criminal authorities, we become its accomplices. The criminal system sooner or later involves all citizens in violation of the law. On the other hand, disobedience entails the most severe punishments.

It is known that this incident in the history of state institutions was resolved a long time ago by the introduction of the principle of the rule of law, and along with it, in the history of political thought, the ethical maxim of disobedience to authorities that did not follow the law and non-compliance with criminal laws was invented very early. But alas!

Gangs can arise at the grassroots level, and then they can in principle be liquidated "from above", with the help of existing law enforcement agencies. If criminal groups arise in power at a higher level, then it is practically impossible to destroy them by actions "from below", since they establish control over lower structures, creating a criminal system.

For many centuries, the justification for the existence of such systems was the concept of its higher origin. If the power is given by God, then only God can take it away, and not the people, a potential criminal and rebel. The transition from absolutism to democracy, which began in the 18th century, was accompanied by a complete rejection of the idea of ​​the divine origin of rulers and the assertion of the sovereignty of the people as a source of power.

In our country, in addition to tendencies towards the restoration of absolutism, the role of vox dei is played by the “voice of the people”, the so-called ratings, which support the idea of ​​the legitimacy of power in the periods between elections and increasingly act as surrogates for the democratic process. Therefore, in a situation of virtual cancellation of elections and a transition from a weak democracy to an autocracy that is impudent day by day, we should expect further expansion of both secular and church propaganda, depicting the ruler as a being endowed with the highest leadership abilities. Accordingly, the image of the enemy will increasingly be portrayed as the machinations of the devil himself, and in this case, a bright goal in the form of a righteous religious war will serve as the main way of legitimizing power.

Lenin believed that it was possible to skip the phase of capitalism and go straight from feudalism to socialism. Knowing full well that he was wrong, the government, which has erected itself into an independent institution, independent of the law, is now reveling in the process of building the old order, ancien régime, trying to correct the fatal mistake committed by the leader of the proletariat.

It is boring for the ruler to live in Europe. After absolutism was overthrown there in the 18th century, power, after a few more historical steps, turned into an ordinary task - strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the law. Strictly speaking, the principle of the rule of law annuls power as such, as an independent institution, turning it into a purely service function. There is no longer any power in itself - there is a law and its implementation. The authorities are the servants of the law, not its embodiment.

But there is also a provision on unconditional "obedience to the authorities." What does it mean in this case, again in Europe? If a representative of authority executes the law, then he should be obeyed. But what if he doesn't follow the law? One can obey or disobey only the law, but not the representatives of the authorities in the case when they go beyond their legal powers and act on the basis of arbitrariness. It follows from this that the authorities can and should be disobeyed, if at the same time you comply with the law, and the representatives of the authorities do not comply with the law. In the event that the authorities themselves do not comply with the law, there is nothing left but to consider them bandits armed to the teeth, who are subject to trial and severe punishment.

But that's in Europe. In other places, the law, as we see, is violated, the functions of the legislator are appropriated by groups of criminals, and on the basis of newly adopted laws, criminal laws invented by criminals are enforced. In what position do the victims then fall, you and I, who are not members of any criminal clan? On the one hand, by submitting to the criminal authorities, we become its accomplices. The criminal system sooner or later involves all citizens in violation of the law. On the other hand, disobedience entails the most severe punishments.

It is known that this incident in the history of state institutions was resolved a long time ago by the introduction of the principle of the rule of law, and along with it, in the history of political thought, the ethical maxim of disobedience to authorities that did not follow the law and non-compliance with criminal laws was invented very early. But alas!

Gangs can arise at the grassroots level, and then they can in principle be liquidated "from above", with the help of existing law enforcement agencies. If criminal groups arise in power at a higher level, then it is practically impossible to destroy them by actions "from below", since they establish control over lower structures, creating a criminal system.

For many centuries, the justification for the existence of such systems was the concept of its higher origin. If the power is given by God, then only God can take it away, and not the people, a potential criminal and rebel. The transition from absolutism to democracy, which began in the 18th century, was accompanied by a complete rejection of the idea of ​​the divine origin of rulers and the assertion of the sovereignty of the people as a source of power.

In our country, in addition to tendencies towards the restoration of absolutism, the role of vox dei is played by the “voice of the people”, the so-called ratings, which support the idea of ​​the legitimacy of power in the periods between elections and increasingly act as surrogates for the democratic process. Therefore, in a situation of virtual cancellation of elections and a transition from a weak democracy to an autocracy that is impudent day by day, we should expect further expansion of both secular and church propaganda, depicting the ruler as a being endowed with the highest leadership abilities. Accordingly, the image of the enemy will increasingly be portrayed as the machinations of the devil himself, and in this case, a bright goal in the form of a righteous religious war will serve as the main way of legitimizing power.

Lenin believed that it was possible to skip the phase of capitalism and go straight from feudalism to socialism. Knowing full well that he was wrong, the government, which has erected itself into an independent institution, independent of the law, is now reveling in the process of building the old order, ancien régime, trying to correct the fatal mistake committed by the leader of the proletariat.