The Rule of Law Cannot Afford an Affair with Obscurities: It needs to be Economic
The economics of law sees the rule of law as an immature child, which can learn and mend itself.
The philosophy of law must not see the rule of law as a confidante that complies to a culture of isolationist contrarianism that succumbs it death, while after its death, all the philosopher does is spreads a propaganda of remorse, which we call constitutional morality.
Ironically, the economics of law questions the ethics of why the compost within the mortal corpse of the rule of law was and will be unreasonable if it lives that secluded and divided way. In reality, this is what it is.
I am not a contrarian, but I am sceptical of the way constitutional morality is being misused in democracies like India and the US. We need to realize that egalitarianism cannot be backed by ideological obscuration. What real egalitarianism should be is something which balances freedom and equality. However, it must also rethink and break the stupid dichotomy between anarchic freedom and half-baked libertarian democracy. Otherwise there is no purpose and meaning of liberalism and constitutional republicanism for which Immanuel Kant lived and died for.
I know this is rude, but things are what they are. You need to understand that the transition between pure law and applied law is never easy. The economics of law must gauge the scientific realism of rule of law, while the philosophy must sketch the art to reflect newer amorphous vulnerabilities that the idea of rule of law suffers harshly. If this is not achieved, then forget libertarianism. However, it is pretty sure that in the 21st century, we would not lean towards barbarianism. Reason is obviously true that neorealism would let the world be slow in ideological obscuration of political thinking.
We need to be wiser to understand how the rule of law can be an economic and reasonable institution, and does not live and succumb every single day like a noble savage that it is forced to behold.