Rule of Law
While reading through gaming rulebooks, I started musing on the rules of life. That leads off into many different tangents, as musings tend to do. But what I wanted to focus on was the core concept of the Rule of Law.
On the surface, rules exist in order to allow people to work together. They are a framework to guide disputes and help everyone understand how to interact with each other. In a game, they are laid out in a rulebook. In life, civilization forms a body of laws to govern themselves. These hardly cover everything and have to be supplemented by “social rules” which are sometimes written down but the more fundamental ones rarely are.
One of the most fundamental rule, and the one most disputed, is the idea that everyone must follows these rules. Without rules, everyone does whatever they want and its chaos, right? Anarchists would disagree, and despite what you’ve been conditioned to believe, they’re not crazy people. The fundamental tenet of anarchism isn’t about chaos, but about living a life without coerced authority.
The other end of that spectrum are Authoritarians who view any deviation from the rules as heretical. Everyone has their place and must fit it precisely. There can be no outliers, not variance. Authority exists to maintain order and avoid the chaos.
Ironically, both sides aren’t to far apart from each other. Often, spectrums turn out to be circles. Neither side can exist in a world with the other. There can be no world free from authority if someone thinks they can be or need an authority. There can be no perfect society or order if anyone disagrees about what that order should look like. So they both end up agreeing on one thing; the rule of law. For Authoritarians, it is ironclad and inviolable, for Anarchists it is open and fluid.
What is essential to either way of thinking is everyone agreeing on the same meaning of the Rule of Law. Here in reality, we have that same problem. For some, the Rule of Law means you must obey the law no matter what. For others, the laws are guidelines but can easily be manipulated to oppress. For most, it’s some nebulous point in between them.
When a law is created, it has a specific purpose. If most people agree on that purpose, it works. Don’t kill people is one most people agree on. But even then there is a lot of disagreement. Don’t kill people unless…you’re a soldier…in a war…defending yourself…or others…or property…the other person is bad. All clauses and exceptions to one of the most agree upon rule. While the true and complete concept for the meaning of that rule is debated, we do all actually agree on the basic idea that a rule keeping us from ending each other should exist. It gets messier from there.
Most would agree all rules are created for a specific purpose. But for any particular rule, what that purpose is, isn’t as clear cut as don’t murder. Road rules for example, most would agree have a purpose. Are they there to keep roads safe for the drivers, the pedestrians, to warn against particular conditions of the area (such as sharp turns or dangerous blind spots)? Yes but…should anyone who breaks the speed limit be executed? Should you be able to ignore a rule if the basic reason doesn’t apply (there’s no other traffic but the light is red)?
But what if the reason a rule was created doesn’t have anything to do with what its claim purpose. Right now, there is a major push across the US for stricter election laws. It is claimed these are being made to ensure election integrity. Look closer, and it appears that the real purpose is far more nefarious.
Does that mean the rules should be ignored? If they are ignored, should all rules? How do you circumvent unjust laws without circumventing the whole system? Those are questions I ask myself and that’s because I view the purpose of rules as a way of constraining the human capacity to exploit. But for others, they view rules as a way of constraining others so that they might be exploited.
How do you reconcile these positions? Because, fundamentally, neither side is playing by the same rules.
