Sunday, January 17, 2010

Rule of Law as stated by Hayek

It is the Rule of Law, in the sense of the rule of formal law, the absence of legal privileges of particular people designated by authority, which safeguards that equality before the law which is the opposite of arbitrary government.

A necessary, and only apparently paradoxical, result of this is that formal equality before the law is in conflict, and in fact incompatible, with any activity of the government deliberately aiming at material or substantive equality of different people, and that any policy aiming directly at a substantive ideal of distributive justice must lead to the destruction of the Rule of Law. To produce the same results for different people, it is necessary to treat them differently. To give different people the same objective opportunities is not tog vie them the same subjective chance. It cannot be denied that he Rule of Law produces economic inequality - all that can be claimed for it is that this inequality is not designed to affect particular people in a particular way.

The Rule of Law used to govern in this country. Now it is a redistributive law that governs. The founding fathers would not recognize what has become of this government, it is turning into a shambles, where blatant bribes are given for votes. A strong horsewhip for the backs of those taking bribes, and for those offering the bribes.


  1. Diane:
    Marvelously well put.
    (even IF it wasn't about SALMA Hayek)

    And any paradoxical treatment must be attributable to Saul Alinsky (unfortunately).

    Good post!

  2. LOL the actress? The only Hayek I'm familiar with is the economist.. but then again I watch old movies or the history channel, military channel, discover etc. Alinsky is in a long line of those trying to overthrow the Rule of Law.