From time to time there comes a time when the terms we have available have to be changed. Especially in this time of collective fear of death, which, by the way, is divided into fear of disease and fear of vaccines against disease transmission. And we mostly sit at home, what else would we do.
Time, therefore, gave us the soul to rethink a little about the words and expressions we use in speech, debates, fantasizing... And so there is that "rule of law". Because with that rule of law - the rule of law, whatever you call it - it seems like we have a bit of a problem. So let's try to clarify them in the next few lines.
* * *
I had the opportunity, at least as far as the signatories of this text are concerned, to attend many occasions where the sentence "Everything according to the law, clean as tears!" was uttered. That sentence, in an ethical sense, is very often the opposite of the naive "Everything must be according to the law!".
From the common sense side, which most of us non-lawyers have as a perspective, it would be nice if Everything Be According to the Law, and not according to someone's personal or, far from it, lucrative decision. Again, from the point of view of those who fear that some wrongdoing of theirs might become illegal at the same time, that "all within the law" is a wording that has a different meaning. It covers the careful matching of the degree of injustice with the legal loopholes, which the legislator carelessly or deliberately left so that any crime could be committed in accordance with the paragraphs. It follows from this that it is not only important whether the laws limit the state in repression or the individual in crime, but also who makes them, how and for what reason. Just to remind you, at one time the Nazis used the Nuremberg Laws, and on the occasion of their vision of racial equality; the sentence "everything is according to the law" then had probably one of the most monstrous uses.
In this sense, therefore, the assumption for the "rule of law" is "the rule of the right" or "the rule of the legal", come on... Look, let's change the term we are dealing with and replace it with two new ones. What is the meaning of playing with words, one miracle.
* * *
Again, from a layman's point of view - and we are not equipped for better - somehow it seems as if the rule considered here requires several important things. For one, it would be nice to know what is (all) fair. Under two, three and four, it would be appropriate to have those who will make valid laws, those who will properly implement them and those who will properly respect them.
Domic, life brings other solutions. To begin with, we don't have much time to think precisely about what is just, because we are so busy registering what is unjust. Then, over time, law writing became a very cruel relative of history writing: whoever won, or wins, has the right to write his pages of Rules by which those who lost will behave. We guess, that same manifestation of power appoints and governs those who enforce the Rules. And finally, respecting the Rules represents a kind of consequential relationship to the Conqueror. He who has reconciled himself to the state of affairs, through fear or capitulation, will respect the law. The one who is not, looks where the aforementioned "holes" are. Or he doesn't care about where the prison is. Or he would be breaking the law if he wrote it himself, that's just the type of guy he is. Criminal universalis.
With all this in mind, the rule of law lacks at least three things: the right state, the right statesmen and the right citizens. Again we played a little with words and again we got good results. Which is to say, if we are going to conclude too quickly or just as the length of this text requires us - before the rule of law, we could also establish the rule of the right words. So that we don't get confused by imprecise meanings of expressions that we have accepted, perhaps mostly because we use them too often.
Let us be right.
Bonus video:
