Dear Friends,
It seems to me, when those who make the law, are above it, law will become a way to oppress rather than a means to order. A progressive might argue differently. They could take a psudo-taoist approach and say, “only the unmoved can move,” to justify arbitrary rule. Which, while being a total bastardization of the core principles of Taoism, it is elegant in it’s ability to manipulate people into accepting oppression. On the other hand, I and a few others, nowhere near the reigns of power of course, believe that when those who write laws are not subject to them, there is no incentive to write smart, honest and fair laws, but instead to write laws that enrich those with political connections at the cost to the rest of us. Then again, a progressive might agree on the facts, but disagree on the morality.
Since so few understand, or even have heard of Taoism, I’ll give a quick overview. Lao Tzu was leaving the great society, when he was stopped by people, pleading with him to share his sage wisdom. He at first refused then finally relented. To do so he wrote down a list of euphemisms or wise and arcane sayings… the Lao Tzu book, also known as the Tao Te Ching. Euphemisms, each only a few lines long, are as slippery to the mind as Teflon is to eggs. Some are… “Only the unmoved can moved, the value of a jar is in it’s being empty, Hold onto the center, etc… These are supposed to be difficult and enlightening at the same time. They do not however justify arbitrary rule. Far from it, they teach that the Tao, or, the way to heavenly enlightenment and human heartedness, is a personal affair.
Laws are supposed to be a means of imposing order on society. That was their original intent. Because without order, we cannot live our lives. How do you buy and sell in a war zone? How well does the medical system work under a pandemic? How much profit is there in cattle that are stolen? In times of chaos, everyone is poor, while in times of order, there is general prosperity. That is the reason we have laws and police, to keep order in society, so that society can function. When criminals like Bonny and Clyde, John Dillinger and that lot terrorized the country, the FBI was empowered to take drastic measures to reign them in. While people may have liked John Dillinger burning their mortgages… they didn’t appreciate their towns and children being in the line of roving automatic gunfire.
Anyone not subject to the law, for whatever reason, be it hereditary aristocracy, political favor or have super powers, they will become arrogant. Seeing the rest of us, that are subject to the laws as lessers… and in fact we are, in the eyes of the government. The same government that has a monopoly on violence. Which means that no matter how unjustly the law is being applied, and the government sanctioned violence applied to your person, you have no Right to resist the beating. Else we would be subject to greater punishments should we survive the violence done to us. That state of affairs is tolerated by the vast majority of people, because it is supposed to lead to order… so we can have children, lives and jobs. Sadly, it is usually used to oppress and enrich, instead of provide order.
When was the last time an oppressor subjected himself to his own laws? Isn’t one of the definitions of a tyrant, someone who doesn’t subject themselves to the rules they apply, often with capital punishment to others? Despots justify their despotism by whatever means necessary. Why would someone who is willing to kill you, for having the wrong opinion… balk at lying? They wouldn’t. As Thrasymachus told us, to the powerful who are not subject to the law, Justice is a trick played on the hoi polloi, to keep us in line, as the powerful use it to take advantage of us. With that mindset, there is not much delta V to exploiting authority for personal or factional gain, thus violating one’s duty to society. Which was criminal to the ancient Greeks as well as Lao Tzu… but morally progressive.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
