This blog post is an ode to law. ChatGPT summary of the rest of this post:

A society ruled by law, rather than power, is essential for stability and fairness, using Canada as an example. The author expresses a strong belief in the rule of law, emphasizing that while no system is perfect, law provides structure, protects rights, and ensures justice, even if some laws are flawed or outdated. They acknowledge critiques of government and legal structures but argue that criticism should not be mistaken for opposition to the entire system. The post also explores the complexity of legal expansion, taxation, and government spending, noting that structural issues, rather than bad individuals, shape governance. Ultimately, the author sees law as a necessary and largely successful framework that enables a just society, and they advocate for continuous improvement rather than wholesale rejection of the system.

A Society Of Law

The best society to live in is the one that is ruled primarily by law. Law is the structure of society, and makes Canada great. This blog post shares a few thoughts on law in general, and why it's great.

Why bother writing this blog post? Because it's not always obvious to people why law is great, and how critiques of law fit into that worldview. Most people aren't lawyers, and they don't spend too much time thinking about law and government. I would describe myself as fiercely pro-law, and in favour of the rule of law, which is wrapped up in our notions of government. But what does that mean? And why should someone feel this way?

Love Of Law

You don't have to love a particular law to love the idea of law. Life without law is unthinkable. There's hardly any places in the world where it can't be found, and those places are generally terrible (e.g. war zones).

The Pervasiveness Of Law

An obvious counterpoint to the pervasive law of daily life in Canada is the Internet, and cryptocurrency in particular (my field). To a degree, there's a lack of the experience of law on the Internet, in that there's no visible signs of it. But that doesn't mean there isn't law somewhere. In fact, most interactions on the Internet are clearly subject to law becuase they're mediated or directly with a counterparty located in a country with strong law. And where there isn't law, it's not generally what people want. People love fairness, they love reasonable decisions, and they love having someone to appeal to that can make things right. Even imperfect justice is preferable to none, but the idea that there is none is usually an illusion. Unless you're located on a ship in the middle of the ocean, you're subjected to law and it's usually near at hand (if not within reach, due to the economics of law). Law is everywhere.

Law Gives Structure To Society

Law is not an artificial creation of government. Law is a conversation that's happening between many different power structures in society, and over time it evolves through customary practices, statutes, regulations, policies, judges, journalists, and every other actor that bears on the rules of society. The rules are not fixed, but they give structure to society. Law has existed since time immemorial, and if it didn't exist it would spring up immediately. Or, perhaps it's more fair to say that law is the structure of society, and our attempts to write it down and debate it are really attempts to define society. This project can never succeed because ultimately the structure is defined by the people who make up the society, and they have a habit of changing their minds and doing unexpected things. Law is a human project.

Law is also a project that reflects the economic agendas of different actors. It's not a project of pureness and good, it's a human project. But that weakness is also its strength.

Rules Exist For A Reason

Every day I tell people what the law is - that's what lawyers do. The laws may not be what I would design, but they are in force. And they're always in force for a reason. The reasons may be lost to time, but they existed at one point, and they typically are clear today too. For example, anti-idling bylaws stop people from poisoning others for hardly any personal benefit (which many people do). There's an obvious health benefit to having people not idle. It would be best if no rule was required, but there are intransigent individuals who don't follow the community consensus, to the detriment of others. That may not be fair of all idlers, but everyone has experienced scofflaws who genuinely don't care about others - this is often the origin of law. Much of law is about stopping those people using community-agreed rules. And this is a noble project. When it comes to environmental protection, nature preservation, health, workplace safety, contractual disputes, and so many other areas of law, the benefits of complying with the law, and having a place to go to if that doesn't happen, are obvious. The reasons are as many as the laws are in number, but there's an overall structure of reason that governs the law.

Is the juice always worth the squeeze, when it comes to law? No. Some laws are overly costly, or they reflect pet projects of politicians, etc. Some rules exist for bad reasons too. But there's always reasons. And even where the reasons aren't cognizable, or are unknown to the people applying the law, the general project of law is one of setting down rules that achieve better outcomes.

The vast majority of laws are not up for debate because they're reasonable. No one comments online about them. They may not be perfect, but they're reasonable. And that's the case for Canada, as it is for most countries.

Government

There's no possibility of a Canada or any other country switching away from the current model of government. This is perhaps enough to stop the conversation about government - it is a fact. But why is it a fact? There are structural forces at work, worldwide, which cause the development of the state in a certain direction. It's not about who the leaders are, or the parties, or what voters want. This can be seen by the remarkable similarities of countries, even with very different legal traditions and statutes. Governments are a directionally determined system based on prevailing attitudes, past events, and the rule of law itself.

Even if a different form of government could be conceived, would people want it? They would certainly want something. Not many people want to live in Nozick's world (however interesting it is to think about). But they might want to live under the rules of Japan, or Canada a few decades ago, or Canada a few decades from now. That's reasonable, and hardly something to be too upset about, and yet there are always fierce defenders of whatever the current state of government and law is. These people are usually caught up in the moment and lack historical perspective, which is a common condition of our always on, always in the moment society in 2025.

The real danger about government isn't what it is but in not having a view. Because each person has approximately zero impact on the law. But if no one has a view of what they'd like to see, it's unlikely improvements are possible at a larger level. And improvements are always possible, and they do happen. For example, the Canadian government now flies pride flags but it used to put people in jail for being non-heterosexual. It was incredibly unjust what happened before, but is that an indictment of the government as a whole? No. It is only a sign that things are not perfect and ought to be improved, which is always the state of things. But it would be easy to view a critic of Canada's horrendous treatment of minorities in past decades as being a general critic of government. Governments are always doing bad things, some of them not yet recognized by the public. It's very fair to ask how these problems can be avoided and what their root causes are, in order to aim for better. Many NGOs are dedicated to this type of advocacy, and it's incumbent on everyone to think about injustices and seek to reduce the government's perpetuation of them. This isn't a job just for lawyers or policymakers or top politicians. Despite the lack of individual influence, the government is generally a reflection of the thinking of the people it rules over, if only because it changes tact to account for shifting public views.

Lawyers And The Law

I don't spend a lot of time praising law and the government because it's a bit of a given that lawyers are in favour of law. This blog post is an anomoly. But I've never met a lawyer that didn't like the law.

People who aren't lawyers can misunderstand the critiques of elements of the law or government, and read that as an indictment of the whole thing because that's how regular people talk. If they criticize one thing they might mean they don't like the whole thing. Lawyers don't think like this. Lawyers see bad law, poorly drafted law, vague law, policies they don't agree with, structural issues better addressed in other countries, etc. Lawyers see a wide variety of legal systems that are together the law but each one is discrete. Trade lawyers don't view sanctions laws as if they are somehow a part of real estate law or human rights. The law is many pieces, pasted together.

Limited Government, Constitutions, and Criminal Lawyers

The way the government operates today is not the way it used to operate. This is always true. But it's a subtle point as well: is the current government the best form?

What should be subject to government instead of subject to cultural norms, personal ethics, market forces, etc.? This is a valid question to ask. The answers are highly debated. But even staunch advocates of whatever the government is doing today acknowledge that government isn't the answer to everything.

The USSR tried big government, and even with many exceptions, their approach to maximal government rule over daily life is a famous (and very murderous) failure. Too much government is not always the answer, and examples abound.

Limited government (i.e. government with limitations) is a concept is at the very core of the Canadian government because it has a constitution that enshrines this concept. For centuries the consensus has been that there should be a wide zone of Canadian life that is not subject to government. Not everything is the domain of the government. Some rights are reserved for people. Where's the line? How can the line be maintained? Are there areas that the line should be moved? These are all valid questions as well. And none of them are an indictment of the system of government but rather how it is carried out. Constitutions are expressly designed to achieve this outcome because the history of humanity is one of government overstepping the bounds that most people find acceptable. The existence of the profession of criminal lawyers is a testament to this.

The Fallacy Of Better People

Law is above the people who apply it. This is at odds with the common belief that if only the people who applied the law were better that they would get a better outcome. In truth, it is the structure of law that leads to outcomes (at scale). The people change. The times change. But the law remains.

In Canada, many laws have been in place for generations. The generations tick over but the laws remain. It is a structural process that is beyond bad or good people, and it's also specifically designed to be that way. A law that requires the goodness of the people applying it, or the intelligence of the people who wield it, is not a good law. This is a principle in all countries, and the structure of law always supersedes personal relations in advanced countries. We have moved far beyond tribes where there's personal knowledge of the people and their intent. The constitutional era began a couple centuries ago, and we're well into that process.

Any attempt to design laws that depend on the improvement of the nature of humans is bound to fail, and is not really a legal project. For centuries people have lamented the people who design and apply the law but the people don't change, and won't change. If only businesspeople could be in charge! If only philosophers could be in charge! Regular people! The military! Etc. But whoever replaces the old people is soon seen to be the same sort of people that all of us are: humans.

Humans act in certain ways, and they abuse what they're given. Law is the answer to the nature of humans, and must always be designed with that in mind.

We should all aspire to live under better laws rather than the vain hope of better people suddenly showing up. It is law that is the saviour people are waiting for, they just don't see it. To the extent that the saviour is imperfect, it is generally less imperfect than the people it is above.

Law In Canada

Canada needs better laws. All countries do. It's always the burden of every generation to learn about the law, and then suggest changes in its direction.

Laws in Canada are imperfect, but they're hardly evil or terrible. By global standards they're fine. The alternatives are much worse. But that's not a reason to not critique what we have in front of us, or suggest ways it could be improved. Everyone can play this role.

Pointing out flaws and suggesting improvements is not a democratic responsibility, but the people who put forward suggestions for the development of the law always have in mind a better Canada. We may disagree on what that looks like, and whether the methods are likely to lead to improvements, but critics are always utopians in one sense. Without critics, it's hard to know if the right direction is being pursued. Criticism is a necessary part of the project, and to the extent that it's unpopular, that's nothing new either. The best criticisms take into account the historical origins of today, and learn from the examples of other countries.

Might The Law Of Code Save Us?

Some critics of how law operates, or how the government operates, view cryptocurrency and the Internet as a new frontier without law where all will be well.

I was once an expert for a case in Canada where one issue in play was whether or not a computer programs code could be considered the complete set of rules that apply to the conduct about the code. Concretely: is it ok to exploit a bug to take millions of dollars from a smart contract? I believe that the answer to that question cannot be a yes. The number of people who would want to live in a world of pure code and no law? Hardly anyone. And I rarely find that my clients have that view or that interest, and if they do, it's in a milder form.

The idea that a Network State will emerge and people will switch allegiances to this new sovereign Internet nation is intriguing but out of step with what almost everyone would want. The state of law and government in Canada today is not due to poor technology but because of the choices and beliefs of the people who have helped craft that law. And this is a remarkably similar project in other countries, and not due to a lack of technology there either.

The problem that most people have is not a lack of laws that apply but more often too much of it.

Too Much Law

People who identify as progressives often believe that utopia is a matter of adding a few more laws or taxes. Or if not utopia, a better country. But this is founded on a misunderstanding of the tradeoffs of law and government. Although every new program appears charitable or has good intent, all new spending and programs fit into an existing rubric of expenses and costs.

Law and government are not free, and they should be used judiciously as solutions to problems. The over-application of law can be an even bigger problem than the lack of law (whether deliberate or otherwise). If only because too much law saps energy, power, and legal resources away from the problems people want fixed (e.g. crime, bad schools, poor health outcomes, etc.) and towards projects that are not important. Too much of a good thing can be bad for you.

Too much law is bad for several reasons, but the most prominent is the sapping effect, because there's no country that's perfected the basics in 2025. Extending law out into new directions is like a raccoon climbing out onto sagging tree branches - it's in danger of falling off.

Expanding Law

Law in 2025 is expansive law. Much greater in scope and detail than in past generations. This is a valid area of concern, and it's related to the constant growth of government budgets. Even advocates for law should be concerned by the sheer number of laws, and the lack of understanding even within the government of what the law is due to its tangled complexity. Untangling the complexity of the law, and revising it, is a classic task for lawyers. Jeremy Bentham was famous for his attempts a couple centuries ago.

Criminal law reformers in the UK at the end of the 19th century failed to make a criminal code for the UK, but they did inspire one for Canada. Simplifying the law to keep what we want, and lose what we don't, is a difficult (and thankless) task. Understandably, it hasn't been popular.

What's popular is making new things and giving away more of someone else's money, but eventually these things run into serious limits. Canada is probably approaching these limits in 2025, but it could go a lot further in debt (e.g. Japan) or have much higher taxes (e.g. France) without collapse.

I think it's better to restructure now rather than later, but other people think otherwise, or don't believe in limits. A fair bit of my criticism of the way some areas of law is being pursued is more about this scale and scope, rather than the law itself. There are many other ways to view it, and it's hard to know what's the right answer.

Taxes

There's nothing wrong with taxes in principle. Every community has them in some form. We'll never get away from them even though almost no one likes paying them (e.g. everyone's heard of people paying cash to avoid sales tax). It's valid to criticize high taxes, and that's hardly anti-government.

Canada has had far lower taxes in its history. Was it terrible before? Is Canada great now because of high taxes? These are very debatable points, but it's not debatable that Canada's taxes are high by global standards and many Canadians have concerns about value for money. It's not about taxes per se, but rather how they're spent. More importantly: Canada is structurally locked into high taxes, so any attempt to reduce them needs to take a serious look at that structure. I often hear from conservatives in Canada that there's a lot of fraud and waste. The reality is that the money is being spent on things that most people support, like healthcare, education, etc., and most of that is spent on salaries, not fraud or waste, which could only be a small percentage of spending. Criticize the waste, highlight it, that's great, but it's not actually responsible for the high tax burden in Canada. And this is subtly acknowledged by what happens when conservative parties gain power, which is generally about the same level of spending. And in fact the largest cuts in recent history in Canada came from the Liberals in the 1990s. This isn't to pick on conservatives, but rather to show that the problems are complicated, and not reduced to simple slogans like drain the swamp. H.L. Mencken once wrote that For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.. Budgets and spending are so complex that it's hard not to be wrong about proposed solutions, but at least the scale of expenditures ought to be taken into account to be sure you'll be less wrong.

The structure of law, its scale, and how it relates to taxes are immensely complicated topics. It's hard to have any grasp on them. Maybe AI will help. But for now, it's fair game for criticism and Canadians seem to be growing in awareness that changing how things are done might be helpful. On the other hand, all well-off countries have drifted in this direction, and it's certainly a structural issue that's far beyond voting for the right party or passing the right budget.

Law At Its Best

There are millions of success stories for law every year in Canada. There's small claims court cases where fraudsters are forced to pay up. There's contracts upheld and damages paid. There's environmental offences prosecuted. There's financial support for millions of people who can't succeed in the Canadian economy due to disability and so many other reasons. There's pensions paid out on time despite bankruptcies. There's banks forced to give back their customer's money. There's an endless array of success stories in every area of law, and my foregoing list are just a few examples picked out of a hat. Law is everywhere, and it's generally doing its work well.

Law in Canada is very successful overall, and on the whole, it's just. Judges give great decisions. I rarely see one that's wrong, even when they go against my clients or is criticized by an appeal court. Justice is always imperfect because it relies on humans, but Canada has a strong tradition of law and judicial excellence. And that's why I'm often a critic where things go wrong. Because Canadians do better all the time. The gaps and shortfalls show areas of improvement, not the wrongness of the system.

Canada is a country where law is generally the rule, rather than the rule of people or force. This is the type of society nearly everyone wants to live in and it is something to be celebrated.