The following was a letter to a writer, Florence King, whose work is featured in National Review. It concerned a piece she wrote for the September 27, 1999 issue concerning a condition for which Florence coined the term “lexophobia” — a fear of laws. Florence King is a self-described “misanthrope” and the article to which I was responding can be found on the web. I suggest reading it before proceeding beyond this point in my this posting. Go ahead, I’ll wait…..
Note: I have tweeked the letter a bit and added links to my recently published Laws of Government.
—
Florence King
Fredericksburg, VA
September 28, 1999
Dear Florence,
I am a long-time reader of National Review and have enjoyed your columns even though I do not share your misanthropy. Upon beginning to read your September 27, 1999 “lexophobia” column I initially thought myself lexophobic. It was only when I read further, to the second and final symptoms of lexophobia, that I breathed a sigh of relief knowing that I am not so afflicted.
The first stated symptom, however, described me in spades. I do indeed see a great many laws as being camels’ noses leading to slippery slopes just down the road. To my great surprise, you apparently do not. And yet you certainly are well informed, very likely better informed than I. Given your considerable grasp of history, it is hard for me to fathom why you chide those of us who merely foresee the natural progression of things. There has probably never been, in the history of the world, a government that voluntarily made itself smaller and less intrusive. Governments invariably grow and must eventually be overthrown.
“Experience hath shewn,” Mr. Jefferson wrote, “that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Each new law is a baby step in that direction.
You write, “Propose a law, any law, no matter how sensible and needed, and the air will instantly be filled with howls of despair…” Indeed. For today’s “sensible and needed” law will inevitably serve as a stepping off point to greater and greater intrusion by government. It has always been so. [See the Fifth Law, Second Corollary.]
Whether the income tax, which was so trifling a matter at its gestation, or a zoning code that permits government to place restrictions on your property, all laws grow from the initial germ to become something much more than ever anticipated. The income tax has grown in size and complexity to something very unlike anything the original proponents had in mind or could even have imagined. Create a zoning code that permits city officials to control appearance of your home and, next thing you know, they’ll be telling you what color roofing tiles you must use and how large your address numerals may be. (My city fathers permit a single sign not more than 1.5 square feet in area and bearing either the street address or the family name.)
Every law, once on the books, becomes something always grander than the law’s proponents originally had in mind. All it takes is a little “fine tuning” here, some “reform” there and let’s not forget to “close the loopholes” while we’re at it. Every law can be “morphed” into something unrecognizable and antithetical to the spirit which first inspired it.
I’m told that Lyndon Johnson, of all people, once cautioned that laws should be judged not on how much good they might do but on the harm they could cause if misapplied. This, I guess, is where we “symptom one” lexophobics come in. I am much given to skepticism regarding the ability of government to simply pass a sensible law and then let it be.
No law is above suspicion. Only a very few could have predicted that the sensible and needed Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbade discrimination and mandated color-blindness would, quite soon after enactment, be interpreted to require that which it specifically proscribed. How can anyone, having witnessed the transmogrification of so noble an act, fail to look askance at any and all laws, no matter how outwardly sensible they may appear? This healthy skepticism is quite rational and hardly phobic, given history.
It is ironic that you ridiculed “the midnight knock on the door” as though this can’t happen in the U.S.A. Actually, law enforcement of late is loathe even to knock, preferring no-knock warrants served by means of a “dynamic entry” in the wee hours of the morning when their victims can be assumed fast asleep. Forget the courtesy of knocking; you’ll be lucky just to survive the experience.
I once heard a police officer remark that, if he wanted to pull some driver over, he had only to follow this person for a few miles. No one, he opined, is a perfect driver and everyone will eventually slip up and break some traffic law. This is the way life has become owing to numerous “sensible” laws. I doubt that many of us can make it through a normal day without running afoul of some law or regulation. I view each and every new law as another potential reason to “pull me over” as I go innocently about my business.
In your column, you only inferred the existence of laws that are not in fact “sensible and needed.” Surely you agree that such laws should be opposed by all, yes? Since the designation “sensible and needed” is highly subjective, mightn’t we agree that one person’s phobia is another’s prudence?
Finally, you may wish to rethink this entire lexophobia issue. Perhaps a different term would be appropriate. It would seem that two of the three symptoms you list are in fact characteristic of those who embrace additional laws: laws to prohibit “profiling” and such. It is only through additional laws that such as profiling can be proscribed. Your lexophobe then is likely calling for, indeed, lobbying for the protection of the law. In fact, symptom three is “unquestioning support for laws that make people feel good about themselves.” This doesn’t appear to describe people who fear laws or the law generally.
In summary then:
- It is reasonable to oppose bad laws;
- All laws, even the good ones, have the potential to become bad laws though a combination of legislative tinkering, judicial fiat and executive orders or executive branch interpretation;
- Given (1) and (2), lexophobia symptom number one seems quite reasonable and non-phobic;
- You need a better name for the affliction than “lexophobia” since the symptoms mostly describe the opposite of a “fear of law.”
Aside from these minor points, I agree fully with your “lexophobia” column.
Prudently yours,
Warren Michelsen