On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> Without law, it becomes rational to strive for power
> after power, even if you don't want it for its own
> sake, to prevent someone who does from taking from you
> what you care about. But with law things are quite
> otherwise and different behavior is rational.
>
> Hobbes thought that whether you had the rule of law
> was so important that it didn't much matter what sort
> of of RoL or how it was set up.
I know JKS is a big fan of the rule of law, and I agree, there are good things about it. But I still think it's important to keep in mind that the human species thrived quite successfully for tens of thousands of years (or more, depending on how you define "humans") without anything like the rule of law. To say "it's rational to strive after power without the rule of law" assumes that something like with JKS and Hobbes think is "rationality" is a stable characteristic of human nature. I reject that, not because of subtle philosophical argument, but rather because it is so clearly inconsistent with anthropological empirical evidence.
Yes, no rule of law in the given constellation of social relations in the U. S. would be pretty heinous. But if you can't imagine productive social relations without the rule of law, your lack of political imagination or your knowledge of the evolution of the human species on this planet are sorely lacking.
Law is simply not necessary to encourage people to fulfill necessary social roles in human societies. For example, the vast majority of parents care for young children because they learn they are supposed to love them, not because of the "rule of law". I think more social life is like this family example than JKS and Hobbes assume.
Miles