Any legal system which purports to protect property rights but empowers the state to extinguish property rights in the "Public interest" cannot purport to uphold the rule of law, unless the rule of law is to become a meaningless idea which means "Do whatever the state commands."
In its traditional sense, the concept of the rule of law did not mean simply "Obey the government." It also reflected the ideal of individual liberty and the idea that the law should grant all individuals equal protection for their rights to liberty and property.
As David Gordon has observed, "The rule of law is an ideal commanding wide respect, by no means confined to those of classical-liberal or libertarian inclinations." It commands wide respect precisely because it transcends political and ideological divisions, reflecting the ideal that all citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law against the violation of their rights.
If the rule of law requires the equal protection of citizens' property rights, then any laws which extinguish property rights instead of protecting them is not "The rule of law" but its very antithesis.
The rule of law, of course, presupposes complete legality, but this is not enough: if a law gave the government unlimited power to act as it pleased, all its actions would be legal, but it would certainly not be under the rule of law.
Hayek saw the rule of law as "a rule concerning what the law ought to be, a meta-legal doctrine or a political ideal ... a common ideal shared and unquestioningly accepted by the majority."
Even in the face of these pressures - indeed, especially when faced with these challenges - it is important to uphold the rule of law in its traditional sense of an ideal requiring the protection of life, liberty and property.
No comments:
Post a Comment