There is no need to revere the law.
The law is not justice itself, not the consensus of society, nor a truth descended from heaven. It is merely a provisional rule written down through a certain procedure by those who held power at that specific moment in time.
Use it while it is useful. Modify it when it begins to torment humans. Abolish it if it cannot be fixed. A clause that has lost its purpose should be thrown in the trash, just like an old instruction manual.
The law has the power to enforce obedience. But it does not necessarily possess correctness.
"It's decided by law" is not an explanation.#
In this world, there are those who halt all thought simply by saying, "It's decided by law."
Why does that law exist? Who profits from it? Who bears the cost? What deals were made when it was enacted? Is it still achieving its purpose? Is there no alternative method with less harm?
They bypass all these questions and end the conversation with: "It's the rule, so obey it."
This is not a debate. It is merely reading aloud the decision of power.
"It is right because it is the law" is the exact same circular reasoning as "It is right because the CEO ordered it" or "It is right because it's a school rule." It only answers *who* gave the order; it explains absolutely nothing about *why* the content of the order is correct.
The Massive Inflation of "We Decided It Together"#
The explanation that the law is something we all decided together—because we have elections—is also incredibly crude.
What citizens vote for, once every few years, is a political party or candidate that bundles dozens or hundreds of policies together. We are not asked for our approval or disapproval of individual laws. Laws not written in campaign manifestos are enacted. Sometimes, after an election, "circumstances change," and the exact opposite policy is executed.
The voter turnout for the 2024 House of Representatives election was about 53.8%. Multiplying that by the Liberal Democratic Party's proportional vote share of about 26.7%, those who cast a proportional vote for the LDP represent only about 14.4% of all eligible voters. Even combining the LDP and Komeito, it is roughly 20%. Inter-Parliamentary Union Election Results
And even those votes are not votes in favor of the individual laws being passed.
Using this razor-thin, ambiguous connection to claim, "The politicians chosen by the people decided it, therefore the law is what everyone decided," is absurd. It is like claiming, "I am making the Prime Minister breathe," based on the possibility that he might inhale some air I exhaled somewhere.
The connection is not zero. But it has been inflated almost infinitely.
Law Records Power Dynamics, Not the Will of the People#
If you read the law, you will see the power dynamics of that moment far more clearly than the justice of that society.
Industries with capital, organizations with bloc votes, bureaucratic apparatuses, party executives, sponsors, and contracting companies. These entities can contact politicians outside of election day. They can hand over documents, petition, dine together, support candidates, bring in policy drafts, and hint at withdrawing support if not obeyed.
Ordinary citizens have one vote. And in most cases, they *only* have one vote.
Those with money and organizations have one vote, plus access, advertising, donations, personnel, information, and campaign support. Even if it is formally one person, one vote, the entry points to policy formation are not distributed one per person.
Even if money doesn't directly buy ballots, it can move who becomes a leading candidate, whose arguments get visibility, what is treated as a political agenda, and which policies are labeled "realistic." There are studies examining the effect of campaign spending on votes gained, even in Japanese elections. Cox and Thies, 2000
Law is not the transparent translation of the people's will into text. It is the written demands of the side that was not pushed back, after various forces collided.
Did We "Decide Together" on the Olympics?#
Right before the Tokyo Olympics, a public opinion poll showing 78% opposition to hosting the games was even brought up in the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly. Yet, the games were held. Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly Minutes
What moved the decision here was not just the preference of the citizens. There was the contract with the IOC, broadcasting rights, sponsors, contractors, already sunk costs, organizational survival, politicians' saving face, and the losses associated with withdrawing.
The majority of citizens can only answer "opposed" in a poll. Meanwhile, stakeholders can repeatedly contact decision-makers through money, contracts, information, and personal networks.
If you call this "the will of the people because elected politicians made the judgment," then the term "will of the people" can mean absolutely anything. If citizens oppose it, it's the will of the people; if the government ignores them, it's the will of the people; if prioritizing sponsor contracts, it's the will of the people.
Expanded to that extent, "the will of the people" explains nothing at all.
Even Bad Laws Were Laws the Moment They Passed#
Historical injustices were not always committed through lawlessness.
Discrimination, oppression, thought control, colonial rule, restriction of women's rights. Most of these were systematically operated through the institutions and laws of their time.
If being legal is proof of correctness, then bad laws that should be abolished never existed in the first place. But in reality, laws were changed exactly because they were wrong.
Many things considered "natural rights" today were not won by those who were obedient to yesterday's laws, but by those who criticized yesterday's laws as unjust and refused to recognize their legitimacy.
If we absolutize the law, society will do nothing but permanently preserve the injustices of the past.
Separate Obedience from Respect#
You obey the law to avoid punishment. That is a pragmatic judgment.
However, just because you obey does not mean you must admit it is right. There is no need to think that because it is legal, it is good, or because it is illegal, it is bad.
The law is a warning that the state will impose sanctions if violated. Real force exists there. But force and legitimacy are different things. It is the same as how obeying the orders of someone holding a weapon is different from morally respecting those orders.
The rule of law is necessary not because the law is sacred. It is necessary because rules that are published in advance and bind the authorities themselves are better than being punished differently today than yesterday based on a ruler's whim.
The law is not an object of worship. It is a tool used by citizens to bind power.
Move the Law from the Altar to the Toolbox#
Do not place the law on an altar.
Place it in the toolbox for running society, alongside the hammer and the screwdriver. If it works, use it. If it is broken, fix it. If it is being used to beat people, confiscate it. If it loses its purpose, throw it away.
The law is not precious because it is the law.
A law that protects humans has utility value. A law that tramples on humans has less value than used wrapping paper.
When told, "It is decided by law," you must not bow your head.
There is only one question to ask:
"And why does that make the law correct?"
If the other party can only answer, "Because it is the law," the answer is clear.
That law has no foundation other than power.