Interactions of Levels

Alright, so why is it useful to think of rules as existing on different, yet interacting, levels? Mostly because of which take precedence and how they influence each other, but also because of how we treat them.

Precedence should be obvious, but really people have a lot of trouble with this one. Consider Natural Rules: in all cases, they reign. No rules we humans try and create can trump them; there is no clause that says "Gravity always accelerates two masses towards each other, unless the legislature of a recognized state declares otherwise."* Humans can not ignore these rules if we don't like them, only work around them. So for instance, if we decide it gets too bloody cold in Virginia in November, we don't pass a law that says it does not, but rather build houses keeping the other rules of nature in mind as to how insulation and heating works. We could pass a law, of course, but it wouldn't do anything. Similarly, passing anti-gouging laws will not make more products available during an emergency, though they often can result in the opposite.

In the case of Social and Governmental Rules, the case is actually a bit more fuzzy. While neither can change Natural Rule, they both do affect each other. Generally this seems to happen in the direction of Social Rules dictating Governmental Rules, as tenants of the former become codified with enforcement procedures in the latter. In fact, many of the same tendencies between Natural Rules and the human rules apply within the types of human rules. Generally legislation that has no social analogue simply does not get enforced. Consider sales tax laws among those ordering from out of state, or the various sodomy laws in most states. Whether people are unaware of the laws or simply don't care, neither gets enforced often. In fact, generally when such cases of Governmental only rules get enforced it is in an uneven manner, directed against an individual or minority group that those in power wish to target for some unrelated punitive reason.**

However, unlike the one way effect of Natural Rules on human rules, Governmental Rules sometimes do affect the Social Rules they overlay. It is not unheard of to meet people who consider anything illegal to be wrong because it is illegal, with little regard as to whether that legislation itself is right or wrong. Even beyond that corner case, however, long durations with certain rules and systems in place tend to make people begin with the presumption of their rectitude. The US Drug War has been going on for decades, and while on a pure cost/benefit basis it is obviously a huge net negative on society it remains a popular point for politicians and ending the prohibition of even marijuana has been a long and arduous battle. Similarly, one finds many references to how in times past the idea of taking charity was abhorrent to many people, and those who needed to were ashamed to do so. Right or wrong, after many years of governmental welfare and unemployment programs it seems to be no more shameful than a traffic ticket.***

That's probably enough for now; anything I would add would take away from the mechanics to dynamics post, which is rapidly snowballing.



*Well, there might be, and we just don't know which definition of state is recognized...
** I will mention this later when talking of dynamics.
*** No doubt this is partially also due to the feeling among those that worked before receiving unemployment that they paid for the insurance aspect. However, those receiving SSI or other benefits probably can not make this argument, and in either case it is not entirely relevant to the argument that society's feelings toward the practice have shifted.