[atmavatar]

> How do we expect them to have any confidence in the institutions and the rule of law ?

They shouldn't. The reality is that the rich and powerful have never been particularly beholden to the law.

For a while, there was a lot of energy spent maintaining the illusion that we had rule of law, and I don't doubt there are some who believed it was an ideal to strive for that we'd get closer and closer to over time, but Trump and his administration stopped pretending.

[mothballed]

I taught my kids the rule of law and what's right and wrong or desirable are totally separate concepts. The law itself only tells you what's proscribed and potential penalties, all of which have to be analyzed in the light of how or who will actually bother to enforce it and the incentives of the various parties enforcing it.

Unfortunately the police come to public schools and try to do their brainwashing very early before you have the opportunity to even address it. So unless you address this issue at a very young age they likely won't question it again until near college age.

[atmavatar]

> I taught my kids the rule of law and what's right and wrong or desirable are totally separate concepts.

You should be careful to distinguish "rule of law" from the law itself.

Rule of law is merely the principle that laws should be applied equally to all. It shouldn't matter if you're rich or poor, man or woman, a member of the majority or minority race, famous or obscure, politically well-connected or not, etc. This is an inherently just principle, but it's also extremely difficult (impossible?) to live up to 100%.

On the other hand, you're correct that individual laws can be just or unjust, moral or immoral. We have plenty of historical examples of unjust laws (e.g., a recent and hopefully unquestionable example in living memory is segregation), and it's our duty to oppose them through voting, contacting representatives, protests, and perhaps even civil disobedience.

[leereeves]

> Rule of law is merely the principle that laws should be applied equally to all.

Which sounds good at first, but...

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." ― Anatole France

[atmavatar]

"To my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" -- Oscar Benavides

You have to both apply the law equally to all and apply equitable criminal penalties for breaking the law, but the latter is pretty useless without the former. In that way, you could say that honoring the rule of law is necessary but not sufficient for truly equal treatment under the law.

[LocalH]

> it's our duty to oppose them through voting, contacting representatives, protests, and perhaps even civil disobedience

If none of those work, there can come a time when it will be appropriate to take similar actions to those taken to secure US independence from Britain.