The “rule of law” has always been an interesting myth.
Consider the following excerpt. Remember that “a body of determinate rules” refers to the legal system of statute, ordinance and regulation as enacted within a legislative jurisdiction:
“If it has been known for 100 years that the law does not consist of a body of determinate rules, why is the belief that it does still so widespread? If four generations of jurisprudential scholars have shown that the rule of law is a myth, why does the concept still command such fervent commitment? The answer is implicit in the question itself, for the question recognizes that the rule of law is a myth and like all myths, it is designed to serve an emotive, rather than cognitive, function. The purpose of a myth is not to persuade one’s reason, but to enlist one’s emotions in support of an idea. And this is precisely the case for the myth of the rule of law; its purpose is to enlist the emotions of the public in support of society’s political power structure.” …http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Law, as understood in common-law, is a different animal entirely. Common-law does not “rule”. The sole purpose of common-law is to prevent injustice from reigning (Bastiat).
“But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed -- then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.” ~ again, Bastiat
“But the myth of the rule of law does more than render the people submissive to state authority; it also turns them into the state’s accomplices in the exercise of its power. For people who would ordinarily consider it a great evil to deprive individuals of their rights or oppress politically powerless minority groups will respond with patriotic fervor when these same actions are described as upholding the rule of law.” … op cit msb.edu
The “rule of law” has always been an interesting myth.
Consider the following excerpt. Remember that “a body of determinate rules” refers to the legal system of statute, ordinance and regulation as enacted within a legislative jurisdiction:
“If it has been known for 100 years that the law does not consist of a body of determinate rules, why is the belief that it does still so widespread? If four generations of jurisprudential scholars have shown that the rule of law is a myth, why does the concept still command such fervent commitment? The answer is implicit in the question itself, for the question recognizes that the rule of law is a myth and like all myths, it is designed to serve an emotive, rather than cognitive, function. The purpose of a myth is not to persuade one’s reason, but to enlist one’s emotions in support of an idea. And this is precisely the case for the myth of the rule of law; its purpose is to enlist the emotions of the public in support of society’s political power structure.” …http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Law, as understood in common-law, is a different animal entirely. Common-law does not “rule”. The sole purpose of common-law is to prevent injustice from reigning (Bastiat).
“But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed -- then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.” ~ again, Bastiat
“But the myth of the rule of law does more than render the people submissive to state authority; it also turns them into the state’s accomplices in the exercise of its power. For people who would ordinarily consider it a great evil to deprive individuals of their rights or oppress politically powerless minority groups will respond with patriotic fervor when these same actions are described as upholding the rule of law.” … op cit msb.edu
https://ncrenegade.com//editorial/how-will-we-govern-ourselves-after-we-win/
https://ncrenegade.com//editorial/public-duty-and-civic-virtue-be-damned/