Dear Friends,
It seems to me, Pareto’s elitists claim you can’t legislate morality… then set themselves to doing just that. Laws today are rapidly replacing morality. This is done by thousands of bureaucrats working diligently at their cubicles legislating the state’s morality into law. Many people believe the Legislative Branch creates law, but it has given that ability to the bureaucracy. This was done because so many laws had to be passed and a legislature is way too slow. So they delegated that authority to the bureaucracy. Since then, the bureaucracy in every nation has regulated everything it could find. In doing so transferring what was controlled by morals to law. In other words, law replaces morals. This inevitably leads us to conclude, the elitists are legislating their morality.
When charity is illegal, laws have fully replaced morality. In some places it is illegal to feed the homeless without a license (permission) from the government. There were some news stories about the practice of fining independent soup kitchens and other private charities for violating such laws. Since then, the practice has become normalized, so it goes unnoticed now. The reasons feeding the homeless is illegal in many places are myriad. Some claim that if the food isn’t government checked it could be unsafe. Others make the argument such behavior attracts crowds and thus becomes a public nuisance. There are those that also make the claim that without permits, there is legal liability should someone have an accident. All are spurious arguments to replace morality with law.
Every time a judge makes an absurd ruling, they move the needle further from morality as a regulating factor in human interactions… to law. There is a semi-famous case of the burglar who broke into a house and cut himself on the window he broke. He sued the homeowner and won. Then there is the famous case of the woman who sued McDonald’s because she spilled hot coffee in her own lap. Every time a lawyer finds a loophole in an otherwise just contract, and a judge goes along, diminishes the utility of contracts… but increases demand for lawyers to close all loopholes. These don’t exist in a vacuum, they are perturbations in the trust networks people have established. When trust is destroyed the fall back is the force of law. This is another example of law replacing morality.
All commerce requires some level of trust. If there is no trust, no commerce can happen. This is when everyone becomes an island. There may be archipelagos of family clusters, criminal associations, and warlords, but in a zero-trust paradigm chaos is the result. As morality and ethics are reduced, people still want to do commerce, so they use law to force others to be moral and ethical. As law replaces morality, however, people stop asking if this is moral, and instead justify their actions with, if it’s legal, who cares? From this all sorts of fraud will develop. Each instance requiring a new law. Thus each instance moves the ball down the field and closer to a touchdown… legalism. Where laws are so extensive, the moral and immoral are equally criminals, but the immoral are adept at avoiding laws.
The most moral culture has within it the seeds of its destruction. Moral people will see someone acting immorally and will demand a law to stop it. This leads people to question, if morality is enforced externally, why self-regulate? Starting a runaway engine to legalism. This is the cycle of civilization. Each has risen in virtue, (morality), and that virtue was legislated, and so external replaced internal ordering. This led to their downfall. Since law serves those who write it, especially in an immoral society, double standards arise. Judges add to the chaos by ruling in self-interested ways. This eventually causes a collapse in trust. Commerce comes to a halt, because if no one can be trusted, and law has collapsed, total destitution must arise. This chain is why you can’t legislate morality.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
