The Rule of Law v. the Rule of Laws

philnotfil · Aug 31, 2022

Some interesting things to think about when we are trying to legislate morality. Hard to pull out a coherent four paragraphs, the whole thing is worth reading.

Guest Commentary: The Rule of Law v. the Rule of Laws

The rule of law is a republican check on the excesses of democracy. A written constitution constrains the ability of individuals, factions, or outright majorities to exercise tyrannical rule over the rest of the polity. It channels and directs political action and political will into a process: the people can have their say, but they must play by the rules of the game. This is undemocratic, in that it checks majoritarianism. But it is also anti-authoritarian in that it prevents powerful individuals from exercising arbitrary power.
Click to expand...

The rule of laws is the proliferation of rules and legal sanctions into every area of American life in the attempt to control or dictate more and more of what we can and cannot do. It is both cause and effect of the conflation of that which is illegal with that which is immoral (and vice versa). As we proliferate laws and administrative rules, the legal system becomes the primary means of dealing with every problem that arises. It becomes the sole means of managing human foibles. “There ought to be a law,” we demand.
Click to expand...

As we have increasingly ignored the Constitution in favor of doing the things we want, regardless of whether or not we are constrained by a supreme law of the land, we have gradually given up on the rule of law.
Click to expand...

As we get away from the Constitution, we are increasingly forced to rely upon a proliferation of rules and regulations to govern behavior. If we no longer believe elected officials are above the law, we must make sure it’s our side holding the reins of power. More and more, we seek to use the law as a weapon against those we dislike.
Click to expand...

wgbgator · Aug 31, 2022

Makes a great case for the 'rule of law' being a bad thing, which I don't think was the intent

The rule of law is a republican check on the excesses of democracy. A written constitution constrains the ability of individuals, factions, or outright majorities to exercise tyrannical rule over the rest of the polity. It channels and directs political action and political will into a process: the people can have their say, but they must play by the rules of the game. This is undemocratic, in that it checks majoritarianism. But it is also anti-authoritarian in that it prevents powerful individuals from exercising arbitrary power.
Click to expand...

And that last statement seems quite false, we've got plenty of authoritarians exercising arbitrary power here! The 'rule of law' protects and enables them too!

Log in

Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community

The Rule of Law v. the Rule of Laws

philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

wgbgator Premium Member

Log in

Chat

Forums

Insiders Only

Free Sports

Plaza

Members

Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community

The Rule of Law v. the Rule of Laws

philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

wgbgator Premium Member