"Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.” – Plato
Ochlocracy – Noun. Government by the mob; mob rule; mobocracy.
Ochlocracy (“rule of the general populace”) is democracy (“rule of the people”) spoiled by demagoguery, “tyranny of the majority” and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligocracy (“rule of a few”) is aristocracy (“rule of the best”) spoiled by corruption.
I am saddened by recent events. It is not the events themselves that bother me. It is what the events directly lead to. To summarize:
In the past number of years, many many arbitrary laws have been passed. These include:
Wearing a sweat-shirt inside out is a “threatening misdemeanor” in Half-Moon Bay, CA.
Chicago law prohibits eating in a place that is on fire.
In Michigan a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission.
In Cleveland, OH, women aren't allowed to wear patent-leather shoes.
In Carmel, NY a man can't go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.
Just this month (April, 2010), Arizona has passed a law that requires law enforcement to enforce a particular federal law. This was passed for not less than 3 reasons:
The federal government has refused to enforce the law.
Individual cities within the state have refused to enforce the law – an act that can be considered unconstitutional since the subject deals with a matter the federal government is constitutionally empowered in, federal law trumps state law, and federal law decrees that this be enforced.
Tax dollars are being lost hand over fist because the law is not being enforced.
People are dying because the law is not being enforced. In fact, it was one such death that drove Arizona to push the law through.
And to add insult to injury, news agencies across the nation are calling the law “Unconstitutional”. It is by no means a breach of the constitution – It is an attempt to enforce existing federal law at the state level. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its a good law. I'm not saying its a bad law. I'm saying that its a law that matches existing federal law, and if you actually take the time to read it and compare it to the US Constitution, you will find that it does not violate the Constitution – It makes perfect sense to check someones identification when you suspect they have committed a crime unrelated to said law (Yes, I said 'suspect they have committed'. Innocent until proven guilty and all that...)
In summary: Law enforcement agencies are being given numerous spurious laws to enforce. Law enforcement agencies are refusing to enfoce some laws. This is a breakdown in The Rule of Law. Why is this important? Simple. At the opposite end of The Rule of Law is Anarchy, and Anarchy is something nobody, in the end, enjoys.
The numerous laws are a similar problem. If everything (or a sufficient subset of everything) is illegal, everyone is guilt of something. Then it becomes a question of what laws will law enforcement personnel enforce. This will ultimately be decided arbitrarily. People may choose to enforce laws based on what they deem to be fair. Or they may enforce them based on who they like, or hate ('That grumpy jerk on Madison parked his junky car out front again. I'll need to find something to arrest him for to teach him a lesson.'). Or people may enforce laws based on who donates to their personal income (ahem, bribes). This is because when there are too many laws to enforce them all, the enforcement agency is left with the task of choosing which laws to enforce. There is no other way to do it, and when that happens The Rule of Law is transformed into The Rule of “Because I Say So”, and nothing can be less just, less fair than arbitrary decisions made by scores of individuals.
How to stop this? Well, it's simple:
Enforce the laws. No exceptions. Liking or hating a particular law should never enter into the equation. If it's a law, it must be enforced. Anything else degrades The Rule of Law and is a step towards corruption, favoritism, and oppression.
Those laws that are bad for civil order should be changed or abolished.
Those laws that are being enforced improperly should be amended or abolished (I can think of several that fit into this category. For example 'equal oportunity' laws are presently enforced in a way that encourages discrimination, the very problem the laws were intended to eliminate).
The thing that's really irksome about the recent events with Arizona is this: Federal legislators are calling the Arizona law unconstitutional, when the federal government already has a legal obligation to uphold the same legislation. They arn't doing this because the law is unconstitutional. It's not. They are doing it because it is a show of power from the states. It is a show that the states can solve a problem the federal government cannot, and that is a blow to the authority and majesty of the federal government that the federal legislatiors cannot suffer, because it makes them appear weak and they are not, after all, they are United States congressmen and senators, are they not? So from the view of the federal government, a state may not enforce a federal law. Thats for the federal government to do, and the state is to do only what the federal government allows it.
When The Rule of Law fails, anarchy results. Where anarchy results, people will seek to establish The Rule of Law. When one body claiming (incorrectly) to enforce The Rule of Law encounters another body that tries to enforce same rule of law, several things can result. One such thing would be Civil War (and believe me, no war is civil). If this nation continues down this road, the only thing that can come of it is dark times.
Here's an idea: People will want to keep the important laws on the books, and won't care much about the unimportant laws. As a possible thought experiment, consider this. Picture a country where by default laws expire every 4 years. A law can be extended by the current legislature to a date not more than 4 years future from the date of vote. In the case of a large majority vote (say, four-fifths majority), the law can be made permanent, but can be revoked with a simple majority vote (51% majority). Lets add a twist: No law may take effect for 6 years after it is voted into effect, and any law having expired likewise must wait 6 years before taking effect. The only exception to this clause being laws for military ends passed in time of active war (read: shots fired) against a foreign aggressor (read: he started it). This means that without passing 2 consecutive votes, a law cannot be passed. This makes it difficult to pass or maintain laws based on 'knee-jerk' reactions to individual events, unless said laws seem reasonable even after the passage of time. It's also very easy to drop legislation that is deemed to not be vital, as non-vital legislation will soon fail to muster a vote of renewal, and any shift of focus away from vital laws (which will be bound to happen from time to time) will result in repeated lessons about why that a law is important when it fails to be renewed. It may cost some from time to time, but not near as much as an oppressive government.
Goodness knows abolishing arbitrary laws can not come too soon. It's already illegal to so much as cross the street in places. Honest! They call it 'Jay-Walking'!