The economic case for bringing political power (“government”) to general law is at the very bottom, simple, that it must follow. It is the blunting of the ruler’s incentives by scholars to be tyrannical or tyrannical to some of the rules. (They need different kinds of supporters and praetorus, so they cannot rant everything they control.) Only those who are convinced that they are among the exploiters rather than being exploited can oppose this interest in the law. Two different epochs and two quotes from the political system can explain the points.
The first came from the economist Manker Olson (The Power and Prosperity of His Books: Growing Communeists and Capitalist dictatorships [Basic Books, 2000],pp. 39-40):
When submarines organized the government for their own cities, they not only provided total power sharing through votes, but also struggled to reduce the probability that government chief executives would take on dictatorial power. For example, for some time in Genoa, the government’s highest manager had to be an outsider. Additionally, he was constrained by a fixed office, forced to leave the city after his term ended and forbidden from marrying local families. In Venice, the dogs afterwards were beheaded for his attacks, after Doge, who tried to turn himself into a dictator, was dictatorial in power. The same city-states were also said to have more elaborate courts, contracts and property rights than most European kingdoms of the time. As is well known, these city-states produced Europe’s most advanced economies, not to mention Renaissance culture.
Similarly, Execute Doge was Marino Faliero (1274-1355). In the hall of the great council, where his portrait should stand among other dogs, the black cloth has an inscription:
Do est locus marini falero decapitati pro Criminibus
This is the space for Marino Fariello, who was beheaded for his crimes
The second published quote is far from the 14th and 15th centuries, and to us is Meiet. Ours is an era of better established freedom and the rule of law, but what happens if the government does not follow the constitution? The April 17 Skas decision of three judges from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, signed by Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, provides answers. The court has accused the administration of doing nothing to correct Egregeus’ “administrative error” to send Albrego Garcia to a wild prison in El Salvador, contrary to legitimate procedures and previous court orders. Wall Street Journal Report (“Colining Court Scolds Trump Administration on “Shocking” Response to Import Errors,” April 18, 2025):
“This should be shocking not only to judges, but also to the intuitive sense of freedom that America still cherishes, far from the courts,” Wilkinson wrote.
“If today, if executives are claiming their right to deport without justice and ignore court orders, will they not deport American citizens and waive their responsibility to bring them into their homes?
The only way that law can bind the ruler, if any, is that it is interpreted by the judge (the appeal process is at the final court), government agents and elected officials. Actual judges (as opposed to “administrative judges”) are independent and not appropriately government agents. Their role is purely responsive – they intervene when the party feels pissed and call on them to apply the law. (Friedrich Hayek’s Law, Law, and Liberty, Volume 1, a central reading of judges.)
We live in times of excitement, education and danger.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
The Venice dogge is followed by his iconic enforcer c. According to Chatgpt, 1400
