Ruler or Lawyer

SOP, originally uploaded by lucienphoto.

Sometimes at the most innocuous moments, life will toss you a bone of wisdom. Today was one of those days, as I soaked in the warm soapy water of my morning shower. Lawyer vs Ruler.

We have laws that we like to think of as fair and impartial. We have rules that we also like to think of as objective. Neither is really true. Here is the pearl: There are laws of physics and gravity and mathematics. And there are human laws based on the Old English interpretation of Judaic-Christian principles. We presume to think that everyone should abide by these principles. If human laws were as specific and certain as gravity and inertia, perhaps we would not need prisons and corrections people. But they are not certain. And they certainly are not impartial or objective. New evidence is "unearthed" daily about convictions by the Law users that were based on rumor, suspicion, falsehoods and innuendo. We had lawyers arguing the admissability of evidence and we still manage to unjustly convicted and execute a number of innocent people.

We have rules, too! These rules are based on our Constitution and the Judaeo-Christian ethics. The rules are based on the laws that the lawyers and legal beagles think we should all be following. Only problem is that our laws are always subject to interpretation. We have judges and appelate courts and supreme courts that all look at interpretations of the law.

So are we overrun with Rulers or Lawyers? I purport that our problems arise because we don't recognize laws and that we put too much faith in rulers. Do you understand the difference?