The Rule of Law

Consistent application is the key

Imagine a highway with a 55 MPH speed limit in a white-dominant region. Imagine that traffic on this highway moves at 65 MPH almost constantly, but no citations are issued.

Now a black driver traverses the highway at 60 MPH. He is immediately pulled over and fined.

How should a supporter of the Rule of Law feel about this?

One person might feverishly argue that the posted speed limit is 55 MPH and the man was driving at 60 MPH, ergo he has no standing from which to complain about his fine. Any reference to other, un-fined drivers is whataboutist deflection. He broke the law!

Another person might argue that given the consistent practice of NOT fining drivers for driving 65 MPH on this highway, the black driver ought not to be fined for driving slower than that.

---

History has shown us that the second interpretation leads to the most social cohesion and prosperity. There are plenty of conceptual nuances underneath “The Rule of Law” that are ripe for abuse: laws that are too vague or complex to be understood, laws that cannot be consistently enforced for logistical reasons, and a variety of other “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime!” enablers. Consistent application of the law is the feature of the Magna Carta that was most revolutionary and most beneficial, and we should all refer to that trait, first and foremost, as the true meaning of The Rule of Law.