>It actually doesn't get much better from what I can tell. As opposed
>to Wilde, who says laws are made for the rich and should be disobeyed
>if they don't serve the interests of those in crushing poverty, Badiou
>says, "no one is asked to love a law, simply to obey it." This is
>after he earlier criticizes "the belief that the French need simply to
>accept the laws of the us-led world model and all will be well." In
>other words, he has plenty of issues that would structure a "point
>that would stand outside the temporality of the dominant order and
>what Lacan once called 'the service of wealth,'" but he settles for a
>sort of ideological unity that is, in some ways separate from the
>material reality he is trying to critique.
This is well stated. Though Badiou doesn't say so explicitly, the implication is that law that must be obeyed is the French law, while the U.S. should be rejected. This is the same guy who wrote an essay in early 2003 saying it was of the highest importance that France and Germany unite--literally: they should become one country--to act as a counter to U.S. imperialism. I guess the name of his one world is Europe.