The Myth of "The Rule of Law"

The theory of a republic is essentially that, in contrast to democracy in which there is tyranny of the majority and in contrast to monarchy in which there is the rule of a single man or oligarchy, the law itself is what rules rather than men. In essence, a republic is supposed to be a model for government that avoids being both both democracy and monarchy, and allegedly replaces the adminstration of men over men with the adminstration of the law itself over men. In a republic, the law is supposed to restrain the lay public from creating tyranny of the majority (I.E. a democracy) and simultaneously restrain the institutional agents of the state from functioning as an elite of rulers imposing their will on the lay public (I.E. an oligarchy).

But a basic understanding of how human beings work and a rational analysis of how the state functions as an institution, including so-called republics, renders this theory of government as a rather blatant absurdity. How can a law be self-enforcing? By definition, a governmental law is drafted by men and must be enforced by men. No political system can escape the rule of men, for all political systems are created and run by men. At the same time, no political system is the result of the decisions of everyone within a society, for at a fundamental level all political systems are oligarchies in which a small percentage of the overall population are those with direct control over the state apparatus, those who actually make and enforce the laws.

The absurdity of the notion that a piece of paper with words on it in and of itself will fatalistically or pre-emptively stop human beings (including those within the state apparatus itself) from engaging in certain actions should be rather obvious. In terms of the lay public, they may theoretically engage in such actions anyways and their actions may be rather unpredictable. A piece of paper isn't going to restrain a mob. And in terms of those within the state apparatus themselves, they have most leeway of all in the matter, for it is ultimately they who make the laws and may choose to enforce or not enforce them. Since they are not really bound by any higher external 3rd party institution, they may theoretically function in a lawless manner. The law maker is effectively and seemingly paradoxically "above the law". For since they have a monopoly on law, they may theoretically interpret it and defy it as they please. The law is not binding on them. Rather, the law's content and applicability is actually bound to their whims as the ones with power.

So it would seem that an attempt at a republic will always reduce to some kind of oligarchy, most likely a representative democracy with a constitution. The constitution is merely an additional feature of the democracy that is meant to restrain both the people and the government. Except a constitution cannot really be effective in any consistant or long-term sense. It will not fatalistically restrain institutional agents of the state from using power and the lay public from engaging in majoritarian or mob behavior. As the decades and centuries pass, it becomes less and less meaningful and effective as a society evolves (or devolves). At best, it functions as a lame rationale to provide legitimacy to the state while its alleged function as a restraint is rendered meaningless by the ability of the state's institutional agents to exercise their power. A constitution does nothing to actually restrain or take away the oppurtunity or ability for institutional agents of the state to use power.

The notion of the rule of law would only make sense if the state was an entity external to human interaction, as if it were not made up of human beings but was enforced through some natural or supernatural mechanism. But the state is quite clearly created and administered by acting human beings. It is not some sort of intrinsic mechanism of nature that functions independantly of human action, or the result of the will of some deity. The only laws that can be said to rule all on their own irrespective of men are natural laws. But natural law is not something that political systems are based on, as political systems are the synthetic creations of men. At best, natural law is an independant standard of justice that currently existing political systems may be held up to and discredited with. While some early natural law theories were used to legitimize states, a properly formed and applied natural law theory can only be used to delegitimize states.

There is good reason to be quite skeptical towards the effectiveness of governmentally created laws to begin with. Not only is it absurd to propose that laws can rule on on their own, but the ability of human beings to enforce them is quite limited due to a certain factor of unpredictability in the behavior of human beings. That is, the mere existance of a law illegalizing certain actions and even the existance of an institutional apparatus that attempts to have humans enforce such a law and threatens punishment for defying it does not gaurantee that people will not in fact defy the law and that people will not in fact get away with defying the law. While this has obvious implications with respect to laws prohibiting economic interactions (which are miserable failures in light of their own alleged goals), it is even true with respect to laws against basics that everyone pretty much agrees are wrong like murder, rape and theft.

The notion that most people generally don't murder, rape and steal either solely or primarily because there is a governmental law against them is rather absurd if one accepts the premise of free will (at least some kind of compatibalism). The existance of a governmental law in and of itself is not the cause of good or ethical behavior, and some people do engage in the shunned actions in question despite the existance of a law against it. If someone is truly determined to engage in such an action, they are going to do it regaurdless of whether or not there is a governmental law against it. Criminals are criminals precisely because they have an extremely high time preferance, I.E. they want what they want now regaurdless of potential negative consequences that may come about in the future. If someone does not engage in such an action, it is mostly likely primarily because they themselves find it ethically impermissable. Social convention itself, combined with the natural incentives towards social cooperation, is the primary reason why most people tend to generally be peaceful in interpersonal relations.

In a fundamental sense, a society truly cannot be planned or socially engineered in the long-run, even by laws. A society is the sum total of interactions between the individuals that make it up, and such interpersonal relations are so complex and diverse that it would be impossible for a single individual or organization to truly predict and absolutely control their behavior. No human being or group of human beings has the mental capacity, let alone the physical ability, to deterministically control and pre-empt the behavior of everyone within a society. They would have to be omniscient to do so. The mere fact that one can only be at one place at one time renders any attempt to efficiently exercise such control ridiculous and pointless. So it could be said that all government is fortunately limited by definition, limited by the natural limits of human ability and the unpredictability and diversity of human behavior.

Quite clearly, the law is not something worthy of putting much of one's faith in, even with good intentions.


# Patrick said on 27 July, 2008 12:29 PM

This is a great article.  The Constitutionalist Ron Paul supporters need to see this. You should submit this to as an article to appear on the front page.

# Brainpolice said on 28 July, 2008 01:52 AM

I've thought about submitting material to before but I'm not sure how to go about it. Would I have to simply e-mail Lew himself or something?

# Fred said on 28 July, 2008 10:02 PM

So, not democracy, not monarchy, not oligarchy, not a republic, what then? Anarchy? Social darwinism? I get the prize if I kill you before you kill me?

# Brainpolice said on 29 July, 2008 02:03 AM

Market anarchism FTW.

# atrickpay said on 07 August, 2008 05:39 PM

Yup, you just need to email him.

Hope to see it on there soon.

# Brad said on 10 March, 2009 10:27 PM

The basic laws against rape, murder, theft are good, but one should be able to protect by any way posibble the things one has worked, bled, lost sleep for including family, business, money earned and saved also property. I feel we should revert back to the old west.

# Old_Curmudgeon said on 19 March, 2009 02:57 AM

"First, define your terms," said Ayn Rand. Methinks you need to define "law." At last count, there were about 398 "definitions."

The way I se it, there are two "schools" of thought on law. There is the "natural law" school and there is the "legal positivism" school.

The definitions from each are almost diametrically opposed.

I support the "natural law" view. Definition of law: An "unbreakable" rule of nature that is universal, unending (permanent,) uniform and NOT a transient, sudden order from a superior or concerning a particular person or group of persons."

A statute, however, is a whimsical attempt by a legislature to compel certain groups of people to act in legislature-prescribed manners.

# Old_Curmudgeon said on 19 March, 2009 03:19 AM

Legal Positivism says that a Law is ultimately: "Whatever the state says it is."

# Viagra. said on 28 March, 2009 12:33 PM

Viagra. Viagra affects on women. Buy viagra.

# mehak said on 05 March, 2012 12:32 AM

You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.<a href="">money uploading</a>