I’ve already noted that some words and phrases – like “homeland” or “freedom through work” – leave me cringing. They disguise an often troubled core belief in a trivialized honey coating. Another one _ which I hear a lot lately _ is the “rule of law.”
Humans exist in a social contract. Much of that _ a good example is a family, another the work group _ formalizes ancient principles of cooperative interaction. There may be all kinds of rules, strict and otherwise, but they are always applied _ at least in successful tribal/units _ with a great deal of common sense. Flexibility using rules supports a known consensus of behavior.
The “rule of law”, on the other hand, implies that law should be applied ruthlessly and by the letter. “Rules of law” are tools of the rulers manipulated by the slickest minds available. “Rule of law” supported Nazis, Confederate slave owners, the aristocracy in 1785 France, and _ for that matter _ the gang leading the reign of terror in 1790s Paris.
One typical response is for the ruled to revolt and rewrite the laws. However, what we desire is an enforcement of common consensus. Obviously that is nebulous, but then so is the “rule of law” after it has been twisted, misapplied, and otherwise ignored so as to be practically effective. “Mitigating circumstances” and all that.
No, I would much rather not live in a “rule of law” society. Unfortunately, it’s all we’ve got. But I can wish there were something better and I refuse to glorify our current methods.
HuntingtonHarborThoughts 