Rule of Law the Non-Ideal

People tend to assume that Western Political Values are unquestionably virtuous and stand as the highest achievements possible for their or anybody’s Civilization. In proportion as anything is different from Western Values, so it is considered by that same degree to be inferior, even Barbarian. But all of this is done under the spell of hundreds of years of propaganda, from minds clouded with nationalistic and ethnic pride, and from simply never having ever been exposed to anything else. Small educations make for small minds.

Rule by Law was not always and everywhere held up to be one of the highest Ideals. In Classical China there was quite an argument for and against it. Confucius lined up against Rule of Law, what was referred to then as Legalism, and not because he was some kind of an Anarchist, but because he recognized the limitations of Legalism and the tricks that could played with the Law.

You see, the Legalists claimed that everybody had a different sense of what was right and wrong and so in order to preclude the possibility of any misunderstandings, then everything should simply be spelled out in the Law. Just tell people what is permitted and what is not permitted. What could be simpler then that?

Well, Games have rules, but Life isn’t a Game. Unless one is a Player and wishes to be the Winner to everybody else’s Loser.

You see, once Legalism, or Rule of Law, is established then the Legalists, what we call Lawyers nowadays, can set to work creating all the loopholes, or ways to engage in ethically shady dealings without precisely crossing the exact letter of the Law. Indeed, this was all the agenda that the Legalists must have had in mind or cared about, because the other result of Legalism, or Rule of Law, serves nobody, and that is when somebody by force of circumstances happens to violate the law, but only because of overwhelmingly compelling reasons. But the problem here is that Rule of Law recognizes no mitigations, no exceptions. Unless a lawyer authorizes a well plotted Loophole, then breaking the Law is breaking the law. So it is that in a Legalistic Society a CEO of major Bank can bilk millions of people out of their fortunes and toss them out of their homes, while sending entire Economies and Nations into ruin, all while laughing in everybody’s face because no legislature had the foresight to craft exactly the right Law to forbid every conceivable financial trick and slight of hand. But if one of the victims were to accost such a Banker and punch him in the face for what he had done, although it could be counted as only the smallest token of what would really be deserved, then this poor Victim would be sent off to prison for assault – you know, there are Laws against such things.

What Confucius believed was that people, that is, most well-bred and brought up people know the difference between Right and Wrong, and should be held to that standard which all decent people know perfectly well without ever having to explain it or itemize it point by point against every conceivable situation. The advantage here is that there are no loopholes in such a Morality based system. And mitigating circumstances would be allowed, where actions are a salt and pepper mix of Good and Bad, as long as the prevailing intentions were mostly for the Good.

In the West, a certain concession used to be made for Morality within the Legal System. This was the Jury. The Law was the Law, but the Jury would add their own Moral Awareness to the legal equation. But now this function of the Jury System is being strangled away by the Legalistic Judiciary. Juries are being instructed to regard only the facts and to apply only the Law. Dissenting Jurors are thrown out, and some even imprisoned for contempt. Legalism is now entirely pure. Its untouched by any trace of Morality.

Really, it is the Legalistic Judges that need to go. The Law Books need to be tossed. We need to return to the appreciation and application of simple Right and Wrong.

Yes, it can seem almost comical sometimes, when humans guide their social and political actions by what they ‘feel’ is Right. I remember an instance from Greek History. A certain popular Politician gave a rousing speech for War, and nearly everybody voted in favor of the belligerent proposal. But when the war ended in disaster, the same group of politicians voted, again almost unanimously, to have the rascal executed. They didn’t blame themselves. The way they saw it, they had been successfully manipulated. They were made fools of, and so they had their revenge.

Growing up being indoctrinated in the niceties of Rule of Law, the instance from Greek History appears shocking. But if we only give ourselves a minute to think about it, wasn’t the outcome back then better then what we could expect now?

Is the Rule of Law really an Ideal, or is it just another scheme for protecting the scoundrels that run the show? Really, wouldn’t it provide so much more incentive for Responsibility if the rascals worried about being hanged by the people they trick and fool.

At a very basic and practical level the difference between Right and Wrong is that Right works out for most peoples’ advantage and Wrong screws things up and ends badly. When Success can pay off so well for People in High Position, then it would only be reasonable to expect them to assume some Risk for when things end badly. But in our Legalistic Society, there never is any real risk. Yes, it is a gamble, but they gamble with Other People’s Money.

Then there is the not so secret Secret that it is the Rich that mostly write the Laws and they largely exempt themselves from them. Only in the Moral Society, liberated from Legalisms, can the people demand Responsibility, and need no better reason then that they are outraged.

Not everything needs to be Rational. Sometimes Rewards or Punishments can simply be Poetic.