Skip to main content

Prejudices About the Rule of Law

In democratic societies it is a common canard that the rule of law is something positive. Let's reflect on this praise of the rule of law/limited government. Why is rule of law usually praised? It's thought of as a restriction on arbitrary rule, a restriction of state power. The state's not allowed to do whatever it wants. Those in power aren't allowed to do whatever they want to  their subjects. This is seen as progress in comparison to the monarchies of yesterday where the rulers' subjective judgment was the basis of rule, not written down laws. So, what can we say about this argument? Is that the truth of the matter?

The state is praised for having a limitation placed on it. First off, ask yourself: who's doing the restricting? The state itself is doing the restricting through its checks and balances. Imagine, "listen: my brain comes up with the laws, my mouth tells you them, and my fists enforce them! My different parts keep my power in check! Nothing to worry about here!" The citizens are supposed to like a self-restrained monster, so to speak, because it restrains itself. That's not reliable. It's also a funny thing to praise it for. It assumes the state wants to use its subjects in a way that is hostile and harmful to their interests.  This is the reason for the restriction in the first place. One often hears the refrain, "people need protected from the government". Well, what kind of government is it then if people need protection from it? It's the exact same state from which one wants to be protected that is supposed to be protecting you. It assumes that the state has an interest in limiting itself. Everyone learns in civics class that the laws of the state attempt to deal with this problem through checks and balances. So, what is wrong with the idea of the state restricting itself? What is the core of the mistake?

It's a fact that the state restricts itself-- but to what exactly? Not the private interests of politicians, but the rule of law. But this is no restriction of the state interest. The rule of law is precisely how the state exercises its rule and pursues its interest. The ideal is always, "look at how great it is that the state is restricted. It can't do everything." Well, the paramount question here is this: What does it do? What does it restrict itself to doing? So, the point is relatively easy. The state is all about enforcing private property. This has all kinds of harmful effects on people.

Isn't it strange? The first principle of the state should be its abstinence, the fact that it restricts itself? Doesn't that seem kind of odd? That can't be exactly right. What does the state restrict itself to? What is the interest to which it restricts its rule? What kind of relations and interests does it codify and make universal through its laws? The answer is: private property. The praise for a state that restricts itself abstracts from what that state really wants. Why does the state have a rule of law? Rulers aren't supposed to really be rulers, but servants to a higher rule: i.e. law. If you investigate what kind of relations this law enforces and imposes, that's not so pretty. A state that enforces the rule of law is a state that wants private property interests. That's what it's all about. It restricts itself because it wants to set the private interests free to produce capitalist wealth, from which the state's power is derived. Praise for the rule of law always abstracts from what it is that's regulated by law. The assumption is that Law is a realm that excludes brutality and violence, and that this is just something that only comes about if the law is ignored. But this is far from the truth. The law itself utilizes violence to ensure the maintenance of its reign.

Many might respond, "yeah, we agree that it's about private property! That's a good thing." Does this really deserve praise? Is private property really a good thing? That's the question. What's so great about private property? What is it all about? That's a topic for another time.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The concept of cultural appropriation – a critique of racism on its own foundations

Original here: https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/das-konzept-der-kulturellen-aneignung-eine-kritik-des-rassismus-auf-seinen-eigenen-grundlagen/ In recent years, a new form of racism,  cultural appropriation,  has been criticized in some anti-racist circles . They always discover this where members of a group adopt cultural productions (e.g. certain cultural customs, hairstyles, items of clothing,...) that, according to advocates of the concept of cultural appropriation, come from other groups, namely those who have less power over the acquiring group due to racial discrimination. When criticizing cultural appropriation, respect for these cultures is demanded. This respect should then contribute to combating racial discrimination. There was criticism that a non-indigenous artist in Canada integrated elements of indigenous art into her artwork.  1  Even when “white”  2  people wear dreadlocks or throw colored powder at each other (a practice inspired by th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Democracy and True Democracy

“... I think that we agree on our criticism of the ruling democratic system. Except that this system doesn’t have anything to do with true popular government. Somehow, I think your criticism is misguided, if you want to say something against democracy.” I doubt that we really agree. But first things first: on the one hand, it could be irrelevant what you want to call that form of government which ensures that the citizens elect a government that they regularly entrust their affairs to, despite being constantly at odds with those who are elected and their policies for good reasons. Put “parliamentary system” or “ruling political system” or democracy in quotation marks or whatever. One thing, however, is clear: this political system has governed the citizens here for decades and, for all the complaining by the citizens about what the administrations are doing to them, it has at the same time established itself as a political system that is always appreciated by voters, making it un...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Absurdity Known As The Right to Resist or Overthrow

Everyone is familiar with the refrain that there is a right to resist tyranny. If a government is tyrannical, then the people have the right to resist it or overthrow it. The doctrine of the "right to resistance/overthrow" contains a contradiction that is worth thinking about. The rights that people are never squeamish about praising as "natural" actually have to be conferred upon the people by the sanction of a public law granted by a state. However, if the state then turns around and says, "well, this is really tentative upon the whims of the people we rule over", then this completely undermines the basis of law. In other words, the most authoritative legislation (a constitution) would contain within itself a denial of its own supremacy and sovereignty if the right to resistance were actually enshrined and taken seriously, not just as a sop to popular stupidity. It's a basic tenet of liberalism -- and doubtlessly many other ideologies --   that...
Post a Comment
Read more