The limits of law

So, in Speed’s example of convicts who stole bread to eat, the perpetrators knew they risked getting hung or transported, but hey, they were going to starve anyway, and everyone else they knew was doing the same thing, so it was worth taking that risk. Perhaps they also calculated the risks of being caught as well. It’s all about balancing the different incentives.

For me, there would be no incentive to steal in normal circumstances. This is because I am a risk averse person. Furthermore, I have a moral objection to taking other people’s property (I’m a property lawyer, among other things). In terms of disincentives, I would not be able to practice law again. If I were caught, I would be fined, or possibly go to jail. There is nothing in my current situation which I want badly enough which would lead me to take the risk that I would be caught. On the other hand, if my children were starving and I had few other options, the tables would turn, and there might be sufficient incentive for me to steal. My moral, economic and social objections could be overridden.

A good law has to set up a good system of incentives to keep the law and disincentives to break it. It works best if there’s already moral, social and economic incentives for the law to be followed. Of course, sometimes the law itself moulds the moral, social and economic incentives, and people’s attitudes change as a result of the law.

I was remembering today about an incident when I was 11 or 12 where my primary school teacher acted towards my Muslim friend in a discriminatory way that would simply be unacceptable these days. People’s attitudes change as a result of law. Sometimes it’s a chicken and egg thing - did the law change the attitude, or did the attitude change the law? But if people aren’t responding well to a particular law, there’s a fair chance that no matter what the motive behind it, how well known it is or how well regulated it is, it is not a “good” law. When I say “good” law, I don’t mean that it is immoral, but simply that it just doesn’t do what it is supposed to do.

So - if one is talking about the decrease in compliance with laws, it is not simply the actions of regulators or the difficulties in finding out what the law is which is an issue. It is the nature of law itself, and the limits upon what law can achieve. Regulators themselves do not necessarily render a law ineffective, and in some cases, they can render a law more effective. It depends upon a myriad of factors, including how they are used, and what law they are enforcing.

If I had my “druthers”, I’d educate everyone about basic law, and what it can and can’t do. It’s one of the reasons I started blogging. Just for starters, though, I’ll try this post. When you say, “There should be a law against it,” think about whether it would be effective or not.