Our civilisation would disintegrate without the rule of law. It is the unifying mechanism through which our conduct is regulated. However, the law works on the principle of balance. This is symbolised by the scales of justice. Working on the principle of balance, it is subject to the same accumulation of asymmetry over time as the financial system.
The Law is equation-based. Legal reasoning works by matching claims and counterclaims – balancing arguments. Cases are decided on a binary (win/lose) basis. This appears symmetric as between the two sides, but over time precedents accumulate privileging one side of a relationship over another. Each ruling, each judgment adds to the body of law – not symmetrically, but selectively. Even if both sides are “weighed,” the weights are not from a neutral zero; they’re loaded with historical asymmetries.
Legal systems rely heavily on binary constructs – guilty/innocent, legal/illegal, plaintiff/defendant. These are similar to XOR/XNOR oppositions, but instead of treating distinction symmetrically, the law privileges one side through procedures, burden of proof, or institutional bias. The “not” side (the accused, the defendant, the outsider) can be treated relationally as subordinate, like zero in equations, creating cumulative structural imbalance.
Reconstruction reifies asymmetry. Each trial or legislation reconstructs relationships (who owes whom, what is owed, what is right) under the guise of balance. However, the reconstruction is always made relative to past structures, and legal decisions are made under time-bound pressures and incomplete information, so they tend to freeze asymmetries, not erase them. Over time, this process results in a feedback loop: law re-asserts the very asymmetries it claims to neutralize.
The law should move through cycles, reconciling all relationships symmetrically and quantitatively. It should focus on how meaning needs to be redefined so that all perspectives are symmetrically resolved. This could start to heal the asymmetries that have accumulated and the associated social tensions.
Conclusion
“The Law” accumulates asymmetry because it reconstructs relationships based on balance rather than symmetry. It enshrines a logic that appears neutral, but is historically recursive, favouring past definitions of property, identity, and authority. These asymmetries become more and more obvious, building social tension. Bringing relational symmetry into the heart of the legal process could provide a mechanism for resolving these tensions. The dispensation of justice could become are cycling of relational distinctions, not a battle to erase one side in favour of another.