I believe that the arrogance of presuming human actions could be uniformly regulated by law paradoxically created the hypocrisy, or perhaps the loopholes, within our current rule of law. In the Middle Ages, the scope of human conduct was indeed narrow. There were classes, and corresponding behavioral norms, along with mechanisms for class-based rule within each fiefdom, territory, castle, and class itself, rather than a single regulation like today’s laws. However, having achieved what we call ‘freedom’ in the modern era – unfettered by such constraints and devoid of specific restrictions – we encounter the limit where a single body of law cannot regulate all human actions.

Furthermore, as human liberty expands with concepts like free will, diverse minority rights, and respect for diversity, the limitations of a single legal framework become increasingly pronounced. It becomes impossible to regulate every type of human across the spectrum of society with a single law. This limitation, coupled with the advent of republicanism and the separation of powers, has paradoxically galvanized groups of people who believe certain laws are necessary. Intertwined with majority rule and numerous existing political structures, this has given rise to ‘social coercion’ – a phenomenon where individuals demonize others and force agreement to their opinions in order to create laws they deem ‘right’.

While law should expand to accommodate human diversity, the legislative process in a democracy, despite this limitation, paradoxically leads to the creation of one ‘Frankenstein-like’, incomplete statute after another that fails to embrace diversity, because the majority deems it right. This can be likened to open-source software that slowly deteriorates due to numerous commits from inept developers.