Rule of Law

It is difficult for a community (or social group, e.g., non-profit society, religious group, school, sports club, housing co-op) of only 100 fairly homogeneous people to function without rules and regulations. Sometimes there will be unanimous support for a rule. Sometimes an individual member who supports the rule will break it when he thinks following the rule in a particular case is unduly detrimental to his benefit. (Sincerely supporting a rule means being willing to follow it even when so doing involves some inconvenience or loss of benefit.) Sometimes an individual will follow a rule because it has been adopted by the community (or social group) of which he is a member even though he personally finds the rule not the most fair or reasonable of alternatives. The notion of a community rule implies some sort of penalty for those who violate it, e.g., a fine, loss of privileges, suspension, expulsion, being assigned to unpleasant chores.

Each rule may require specific assent by all members (or a majority) of the community, or (some) rules may be decided by a ruling body (and perhaps be put to the general membership for ratification). Again, penalties for infringement of rules may be decided by all (or a majority) of the community or by a ruling body.

Where a state, country, nation, or whole society is concerned we speak of laws rather than rules. When a community has over 1000 members it becomes impractical to require unanimous consent of all members (consensus) for each rule or penalty. With communities over 50,000 it becomes impractical to require specific assent of the majority to each and every rule and related penalty. In large, complex societies rule, i.e., law (and policy) making becomes invested in a small portion of members, i.e., a ruling body, legislature, or government. (The membership may change but the ruling institutions stay the same.) Sometimes the law-making body is at arm’s length from the executive or government. Along with a legislature or government there is usually a somewhat separate judiciary for examining alleged violations of laws, and a police force for enforcing the laws.

Important questions arise. When does a law-making body have the moral and rational right to impose laws and penalties? When is its law-making status legitimate, reasonable, justifiable? Are there kinds of activity which it is unfair or unreasonable to legislate? Under what conditions, if any, is it fair or reasonable for a citizen to not abide by the law – is a citizen sometimes morally or rationally justified in disobeying a law made by a de jure government or legislature?

In a large, post-industrial, pluralistic, multicultural society there are many areas where some fairly loyal, law-abiding citizens feel strongly that existing or proposed legislation by a more or less legitimate government and legislature is not morally or rationally justifiable, e.g., gun control, same sex marriage, recreational drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, immigration, capital punishment, abortion, upper limits on income, wealth, and inheritance, disincentives to procreate, discouragement of the private automobile. Part of living and maturity is learning to accept some difference and disagreement in basic values, priorities, and beliefs (and to yield to the wishes of the majority). You can’t expect everyone else or the majority to share your particular convictions; what is meaningful, enlightened, profound, God’s truth to you may not be so to someone else; someone is not necessarily stupid, ignorant, or corrupt because he doesn’t agree with you; others have their blocks, hang-ups, emotional investment, blind spots, triggers, dark side but then so do you; your convictions may be just as much the product of your flawed, human psychology (projections, fears, defence mechanisms, rationalizations, prejudices, unquestioned, unexamined presuppositions) as others’ convictions seem to you the product of their flawed nature. No use claiming your convictions come direct from God. How do you know this claim is not itself a warped belief (perhaps sent by the Devil!) Also, others make the same claim about their different convictions.

Is the government/legislature legitimate? Some considerations. Can citizens of different religions, political affiliation, class, gender, race, ethnicity (except minors and perhaps those serving time for basic crimes, e.g. robbery, assault, fraud, of which they were convicted with due process) run for political office? Can they become members of the judiciary, police force, army, civil service? Can all citizens (except perhaps minors and certain criminals) vote? Is public criticism of the government/legislature, laws and legal system allowed? Is there a peaceful mechanism for changing the government/legislature? Is citizenship (voting) open to all contributing long-term residents, e.g. those working and paying taxes in the country for 2 years or more?

Are there activities beyond the legitimate scope of legislation (criminal as opposed to regulatory)? Those between consenting adults in private which do not harm a minor?

When might civil disobedience be justified? Breaking a law to save a life or prevent serious injury? Willingness to pay some penalty for breaking the law. Not concealing your violation. That you strongly and consistently disagree with the law (perhaps believing it is against the higher law of God) is not sufficient, e.g. someone who is opposed to photo radar, speed limits, or gun control, not just for himself but in general.

Imposing laws on those who do not want them. Some individuals are opposed to legislation imposing speed limits, gun control, banning spousal or child assault or abuse, or offering sex education or comparative religious studies in school. The belief is that these areas should be left to individual discretion (or the family) not subject to state interference or control. However, society (the state) has an obligation to protect the innocent and to ensure that liberties for certain individuals do not negate the basic liberties of others. Interestingly, many who oppose state encroachment on individual liberty in some areas are strongly in favour of it in others, e.g. recreational drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, assisted euthanasia.

Imposing taxes for services on those who do not want the service, e.g. health care, schools, social assistance, parks, sports facilities, hospitals, social services, roads, military, police force, judiciary, prison system, old age pension, drug and alcohol control, food inspection, welfare, unemployment benefits, water, sewers, garbage collection, recycling, fire department, public transit. Again, society has an obligation to ensure that all children have opportunities for education, care, a decent quality of life, and access to good jobs. A child’s chance in life should not depend largely on parents’ or grandparents’ wealth whether acquired through good luck, connexions, hard work, or shady dealings. A child should not be unduly penalized for having negligent, abusive, or thriftless parents. Notice that the justification for imposing taxes for a community service does not of itself entail that the service should have a public rather than private provider.

Society is morally and rationally entitled to take from the rich (without their explicit consent) in order to help the children of the poor. Parents naturally try to secure an unfair advantage for their own children. This does not mean they have a moral right to do so.

Ideally, perhaps, those independent, self-sufficient individuals who never use a public benefit should get a tax refund. In practice, it is difficult to say that an individual does not benefit from some public amenities, e.g. military, police force, parks, roads, customs, transportation inspection.

Romantic individualism – childish sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, an exaggerated sense of the superiority of one’s own talents, insights, opinions, tastes, values, and beliefs – must be tempered by the recognition that there are billions of us on a planet with finite resources. I am not more wonderful, hard working, ill-treated, highly qualified, talented, or deserving than millions of others. There is no reason why my community, country, or the world should adopt my opinions or give me special recognition or status. Indeed, in world terms perhaps I already receive more than a fair share.