Dear Friends,
It seems to me, morals serve all… while law serves those who write it. Those of us who are subject to the law are not served by it. Meanwhile, those who write it are served by it. That law has an ordering effect and does have a place is not disputed. My position is that beyond basic laws against murder, theft, and fraud, (moral laws) other laws (order laws) serve those who write them. Morals serve all equally. It’s wrong to steal, unless you’re a tax man. It’s wrong to kill unless you’re an executioner. It’s wrong to lie, unless you’re the government. That law serves those who write it at the expense of those subject to it is illustrated by double standards, political courts, and asymmetric benefits. If you see any or all of those things happening, law serves the authors… not you.
There are moral laws and order laws. A moral law is one that everyone understands, punishes for violations of universal morals, and conforms to standards. An order law is one that requires a doctorate to understand, punishes for violations of elite demands, and creates double standards. Take the law against murder. In no place is the wanton killing of an innocent person legal… unless the killer is above the law. When a murderer is above the law, law serving its authors reaches its apex. Nevertheless, everyone understands why murder is illegal, we all recognize the justice of punishing it, and the ban is a near-universal standard. An administrative state regulation, like the “anti-fraud” paperwork to get a bank account for example, is arcane, needlessly demanding, and effectively de-banks the poor.
Morality serves all. Stealing from anyone is immoral. Their political, economic, or social status is irrelevant. Morality tends to be black and white while law prefers gray. Moreover, morality requires empathy. The moral stance is that which comports with understanding the perspective of those affected. The Golden Rule requires empathy. We can all put ourselves in the position of victim. We have all been victims in some way or another in our lives. Moreover, it’s just as easy to put ourselves in the position of villain. We have all been villains at one point or another in our lives. This ability to empathize with both sides is why we understand that theft is a moral question, answered by law. More to the point, it’s supposed to be banned by law, yet is often allowed by it. Civil asset forfeiture is an example.
Law serves those who write it. The great struggles to get to be the one who writes it expose this fact. If writing law provided no benefit to those who do, then no one would care who writes it. Why put effort into a fruitless task? We only put effort into a task that we can derive a profit from… like writing law. One reason law favors gray is because it’s the color of money. There is profit in gray areas. Meanwhile, morality has no profit motive. A corporation then has a duty to its shareholders to keep a hand in regulation. This ensures that regulations put a barrier before potential competitors, protect its markets, and seek rents. Taken far enough, lobbying is more profitable than producing goods and services. In this case corporations will put more effort into lobbying than R&D.
If we agree that law serves those who write it while morality serves all, then we have some choices. We can advocate for cutting back on laws and reintroducing morals. Some will take advantage of the paradigm and fight to write the laws. There is a third option that most will take… to sit on our hands and do nothing. Those who have the morality and gumption to act should understand that the goal is not anarchy, nor is it despotism… the goal is to cut order laws while maintaining or strengthening moral laws. Other people, the immoral, will exploit the law to their advantage to zealously seek power. The more someone must have power over us, the more important it is to deny it to them. In other words, the more order laws there are, the more true the statement… law serves those who write it.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
