Law and Order Sucks

There are many phrases that people use which they never really think about. To them, such terms convey some general connotation or feeling, but if asked to give a specific definition of their meaning, most people flounder.

One such term is “law and order.” What people usually think of when they hear the term, or what they mean when they say it, is society functioning in an organized, predictable way, with people behaving properly, cooperating, getting along, and not acting like violent animals. I’m all in favor of that. However, that’s not really what the term “law and order” literally describes. In fact, most of the injustice and violence in history could be described as “law and order.”

“LAW” SUCKS

In most people’s minds, “lawful” and “legal” have positive connotations. They imagine that it’s good to be “law-abiding” and bad to be a “law-breaker.” In their minds, the concept of “law” is fairly vague, but more or less signifies those rules that dictate righteous and proper behavior. In reality, that is rarely the case.

Those who have been raised to submit to the will of “authority,” and to think that civilized society requires “government,” when they hear the term “law,” tend to think of legislation which prohibits theft, assault and murder, for example. Surely those commands are just, and disobedience to them—“breaking” those laws—is wrong. However, most “laws”—most of the legislation that is enacted by various ruling classes—attempt to legitimize and authorize violent aggression, rather than prohibit it.

For example, if you look up the actual “drug laws,” you will see specific and clear threats to forcibly kidnap and cage anyone who is caught in possession of a certain plant without the politicians’ permission. In no way is that “law” a use of defensive force; it is purely and completely a threat of aggression. Most “laws” are. Indeed, throughout history and throughout the world, the number of horrendous atrocities that have been carried out in the name of “law” is simply staggering.

Governmental “law” is nothing more than threats issued by mere human beings. Whatever evil human beings are capable of, human beings can enact as “law.” History makes that pretty damn obvious, since “law” has been used to justify the oppression and robbery of billions of people, and the outright murder of hundreds of millions. Keep that in mind the next time you assume that “law” is a good thing, and that behaving in a “lawless” or “unlawful” manner is necessarily a bad thing.

“ORDER” SUCKS (sometimes)

While society being organized and orderly is obviously not a bad thing in and of itself, it’s also not necessarily a good thing in and of itself. The forcibly-imposed “order” seen in Nazi Germany, for example, was very efficient, regimented and organized. In fact, it might have been the most orderly example of authoritarian oppression ever. The Nazis had a clear chain of command, kept very good records, and their military functioned like a well-oiled machine. As such, the Third Reich might be the quintessential example of “law and order” in action. Thankfully, most people recognize that that is hardly an example worth emulating.

As with all human interaction, “order” comes in two flavors: forcibly-imposed order, and mutually voluntary order. Even extremely efficient, intricate, complex, large-scale organization can be created—and often is—on a purely voluntary basis, with everyone involved participating by choice. While the order is definitely helpful, it is the consensual nature of the arrangement that makes it praise-worthy.

Furthermore, “order” is only a good thing if it is accomplishing something worthwhile. For example, if a million people were spending day after day making hexagons out of dog poop, working in a very efficient, orderly fashion, would that be worth bragging about? No. Probably the ultimate example of how horrendous “order” via central planning can be was the “Great Leap Forward” in China under Mao Tse Tung. To make a long (and horrible) story short, it was a monumentally organized and orderly master plan … which resulted in tens of millions of people starving to death. Oh, and it was “legal.”

Just to pile on, one more example of a situation in which there is plenty of “law and order” is … prison. An excess of rules (“law”), along with strictly controlled and regimented behaviors, make the situation very predictable, standardized, homogenous, and “orderly.” Unless this is what you want all of society to be, stop talking as if “law and order” means civilization.

In conclusion, advocating “law” is, more often than not, immoral and destructive, as is advocating coerced “order.” Ironically, the good kind of order (meaning efficient, creative, productive, beautiful, peaceful cooperation and coexistence) spontaneously evolves best out of uncontrolled “chaos,” while the bad kind of chaos comes from the attempt to use violent control to create “order.”