Laws vs Regulations

Recently Diana Hsieh (of NoodleFood) raised the question “What is the difference between laws and regulations?” Since I consider myself opposed to all regulations but firmly believe that laws are necessary, this is an important question.

Before I get to law or politics, the first thing to note is that the word regulate derives from the word regular as in regular behavior, regular schedules etc. Anything that is regular is easier to understand, easier to predict, easier to work with. Regularity therefore is a desirable state. But it is not desirable in itself. It is not an end. It is desirable because it usually makes the achievement of actual ends easier. Consider an example. Fixed (or regular) office timings make it easier for people to collaborate, to plan their work, to plan their personal lives etc. But there can be any number of good reasons to break the regular schedule. And the decision to adhere to or ignore a regulation is based on a lot of narrow context. Laws on the other hand are inescapable. Consider the laws of logic or the laws of physics for example. They are general principles inherent in the nature of reality. In a legal or political context, laws are the principles that are necessary for men to live together in a society – necessary because of the very nature of man and society. Without laws, society would break down.

Since the role of a government is to preserve men’s rights and since rights only have meaning in a social context, it is the role of a government to establish laws. Since laws are general principles, there can’t be too many laws. Moreover they rarely need to change over time. Unless a fundamental change occurs in the nature of man or of society (it is conceivable that advances in technology might lead to such changes) laws do not need to change. This is the reason for measures such as checks and balances, separation of powers etc.. in good political theory.

Since regulations (a set of rules intended to make things regular) are highly dependent on context (both in their formulation and in their use), a government is completely unsuited to either formulate or enforce them. Regulations are best created and enforced by the particular set of individuals who need them. More importantly, when a government enforces regulations, it necessarily violates the rights of men to judge what is in their best interests.

Finally, there were some comments on Diana’s post to the effect that “Once Congress passes a law, agencies must write regulations to put the law into effect”. This is a badly wrong idea. It is like saying that the laws of physics are implemented by using rules of thumb. What is needed to put a law into effect is an interpretation of the law to specific cases. That role belongs to the judiciary, not to the executive.

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. K.M., you’re the only one who explained this matter the best for understanding!

  2. K.M., If your purpose was to confound and contort the issue, you are to be commended. First, you use the heading, “Applying philosophy to life,” but I find nothing philosophical in your meanderings. You say that you’re opposed to all regulations and subsequently, after straying away from the clear-cut question being asked (nothing to do with the term “regular”), you put the laws enacted by a governing agency in the same category as the laws of logic and physics. I submit that, unlike the laws of physics or scientific principles, those passed down by society’s governing bodies are, at their finest, only reflective of what that society endorses at a particular time and set of circumstances and that, over time, as people’s attitudes shift, laws are quite often amended or overturned.

    I also take issue when you state that the role of government is to “preserve men’s rights.” While that may be a driving force behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the government is often responsible for limiting and restraining what certain people may wish for (e.g., not allowing pedophiles to reside in certain places, limiting oil companies from drilling in particular areas, etc.). Contrary to your assertions, regulations and rules are required if a law is to be enforced. If you disagree, you must believe that driving at any speed or walking into anyone’s home at will are perfectly acceptable. That’s why we have law enforcement and a criminal justice system and we have laws and accompanying regulations to oversee them as well.

    I could go on, but I have taken enough time to respond to the your misguided ramblings.

  3. > nothing to do with the term “regular”
    Is etymology useless? Are words chosen at random?

    > “I submit that, unlike the laws of physics or scientific principles, those passed down by society’s governing bodies are, at their finest, only reflective of what that society endorses at a particular time and set of circumstances and that, over time, as people’s attitudes shift, laws are quite often amended or overturned.”

    Let me play the devil’s advocate: I submit that the laws of physics – as taught in schools and universities – are only reflective of what popular scientists endorse at a particular time and that, over time, as new discoveries are made, laws are often amended or overturned.

    So?

    The point is that just as the laws of physics are based on the nature of the world, laws in politics are based on the nature of men. Human nature does not change very easily. Just as physical laws have to be discovered, political laws too have to be discovered.

    > I also take issue
    You have not even bothered to define your terms. What is your understanding of the concept “law”? Of the concept “rule”? Of the concept “regulation”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: