The great French economist and philosopher Frederic Bastiat wrote in The Law:
The mission of law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even thought the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect property.
The law is justice — simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this. If you exceed this proper limit — if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic — you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?
Bastiat’s point, that the law exists to serve justice and nothing more, is the essence of the rule of law. The rule of law is the idea that no one is above the law, but also no one is beneath the law. Many people remember the first part, but conveniently forget the second.
Over the past few years, and especially since the election of Donald Trump, the law has come under attack, both by those on the Left and the Right. Both want to carve out exceptions to the law, either by eliminating protections under the law for disliked groups (the Left for the alt-right, the Right for immigrants and Muslims) or by giving themselves greater share of “legal plunder” (tariffs, welfare, subsidies, etc etc). As a classical liberal, it disheartens me to see my country, one founded on (if not always practiced) the ideals of justice, liberty, and the rule of law so willingly and vehemently attack these very ideals for the sake of political virtue-signalling or simple spite.
Justice is blind. That means she sees not the devils nor the angels of our nature. She hears only the circumstances, and defends the wronged party. Whether that party is black, white, Hispanic, Republican, Democrat, Christian, atheist, Muslim, of the “right” mind, of the “wrong” mind, it doesn’t matter. Justice defends them all. This must mean that, yes, we must give the Devil himself the benefit of the law for the sake of justice.
A couple of examples. First, here is a NYT story explaining the jubilation many had after Richard Spencer (the notorious neo-Nazi) was attacked. Second, this story from Reason responding to the Republican (and sometimes right-libertarian) argument that immigration should be restricted because immigrants tend to vote Democrat. In both cases, we have an ‘in-group’ trying to carve out exceptions to the law (in the first case freedom of speech, in the second case freedom of migration and protection under the law) for an ‘out-group’ who thinks differently from the in-group. In both cases, the in-groups are making a mockery of the law.
As a classical liberal, I will defend the rights of both out-groups, indeed all out-groups, because Justice cares not whether one is in or out, and the law shouldn’t either. I will defend them, not because of any sympathies to neo-nazis (of which I have none) or particular love of immigrants but for my own safety’s sake. If we weaken the protection of the law for out-groups, what happens when we find ourselves the out-group? To borrow the language from A Man For All Seasons, if we cut down every law to apprehend the Devil, what will protect us when the Devil turns on us? Yes, I would give the Devil the benefit of the law for my own safety’s sake!
Tyrants rarely run roughshod over the law, but rather use precedence set by those before them (this precedence, although itself a mockery of the law, gives the illusion that the tyrant’s actions are lawful). Exceptions to the law, granted by angles to pursue angelic ends, then become the tools of the devil to pursue devilish ends. Vast presidential powers, handed over by Congress to the Executive Branch, now lay in the hands of Trump. A vast regulatory government, once in the hands of relatively moderates now exists in the hands of an ignorant, egomaniac populist. When the moderates were in power and wanted more and more leeway, the classical liberals objected; like More in the clip above, we refused to cut down the law to pursue the Devil for the exact reason that now is in our face: the Devil has turned ’round upon us and many laws have been cut down.
We must defend the rule of law and its protections for all people, including the Devil himself. Once the door is opened that people who have “wrong” opinions do not deserve the same protections and liberties as people with “right” opinions, then it’s damn near impossible to close that door.