In the first part of this essay, I outlined a possible structure for Choice and Constraint but left open some questions.
One question has to do with
My problem is that I refer to laws as being built from `unbreakable components', but people often break the law.
On second thoughts, it becomes clear that the distinction is between a law which in itself does not break and the person who violates the law. This contrasts with a person who drives a car whose engine dies. In the latter case, it is the car that is at fault, not the person. This is all so very simple, but I did not see how to express this.
More to the point, this offers an opportunity to bring in a Rappaport observation:
Unlike cars or computers, laws are not expected to break, but some people to whom they apply will break them. Put another way, the onus is on the people, not the laws.
However, in times of change, a society needs a social mechanism to change laws rapidly and legitimately, just a society needs people to fix broken cars and computers. That brings us back to the need for a government that is perceived as providing of justice.
Return to: Notions
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page