"Either the law exists, or it does not"
About this Quote
A line like "Either the law exists, or it does not" works because it refuses the cozy middle ground where most real arguments happen. Andre Norton, a genre writer who built whole societies from first principles, is doing what good speculative fiction does at its best: stripping a messy moral problem down to a binary switch and forcing you to stare at what flips when it turns on.
The specific intent is less about legal theory than about power. If law is real, it must be legible, enforceable, and binding even when it inconveniences the people enforcing it. If it is not, then what’s being sold as law is just costume: a set of rituals that mask raw authority. The sentence is shaped like a courtroom truism, but it lands like an indictment. It implies that selective enforcement isn’t a lesser kind of justice; it’s evidence that justice was never the point.
The subtext is aimed at the audience’s tolerance for exceptions. People love "the law" when it protects them and love "discretion" when it protects their side. Norton’s blunt either/or is a trapdoor under that hypocrisy. It also echoes a classic science-fiction concern: in extreme conditions (frontiers, empires, occupied zones), institutions don’t gradually weaken; they suddenly reveal what they were all along.
Contextually, coming from a 20th-century writer steeped in war-era and Cold War anxieties, the line reads as a warning about systems that maintain the vocabulary of order while quietly abandoning its constraints. If the law only exists on paper, you’re not living under law. You’re living under permission.
The specific intent is less about legal theory than about power. If law is real, it must be legible, enforceable, and binding even when it inconveniences the people enforcing it. If it is not, then what’s being sold as law is just costume: a set of rituals that mask raw authority. The sentence is shaped like a courtroom truism, but it lands like an indictment. It implies that selective enforcement isn’t a lesser kind of justice; it’s evidence that justice was never the point.
The subtext is aimed at the audience’s tolerance for exceptions. People love "the law" when it protects them and love "discretion" when it protects their side. Norton’s blunt either/or is a trapdoor under that hypocrisy. It also echoes a classic science-fiction concern: in extreme conditions (frontiers, empires, occupied zones), institutions don’t gradually weaken; they suddenly reveal what they were all along.
Contextually, coming from a 20th-century writer steeped in war-era and Cold War anxieties, the line reads as a warning about systems that maintain the vocabulary of order while quietly abandoning its constraints. If the law only exists on paper, you’re not living under law. You’re living under permission.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Andre
Add to List
