The phenomenon of “law”
A functioning legal system is taken for granted in modern constitutional states and also contributes significantly to a country's economic success. Laws, ordinances, and regulations cover almost every area of life. At the same time, the legal system has become so complex that hardly anyone can fully understand all the rules. To the public, laws often seem incomprehensible and contradictory. It often seems counterproductive to base our social coexistence on a system that many no longer really understand.
Craftsman A wants to start a business and hire two people to manufacture innovative products.
Even this first attempt at entrepreneurship has many implications for Craftsman A: in order to operate, he must register a business and obtain approval for his place of business. If he makes a profit, he has to pay taxes, and if he wants to employ staff, he has to register them with social security. His website must have a correct imprint and comply with data protection requirements. When employing staff, labor law regulations on safety, working hours, and remuneration apply. If he develops new products, he must check whether standards are being complied with, existing patent rights are being infringed, etc.
Legal regulations generally pursue specific protective purposes. They serve to protect individuals, groups of people, and the general public, and prevent undesirable situations. The absence of such standards creates considerable risks. Without occupational safety regulations, employers could extend working hours at will and ignore safety regulations.
The protective purposes of legal regulations are also clear in the case of craftsman A. Labor law regulations protect employees from excessive working hours and unsafe working conditions. Tax and social security obligations ensure that contributions are made to the common infrastructure and social security. Data protection and information obligations on his website serve to protect customers and employees, for example, from misuse of personal data. Environmental and product safety regulations ensure that his innovative products neither endanger consumers nor cause ecological damage. Patent law regulations protect both his own developments from imitation by competitors and, conversely, the rights of competitors by setting clear boundaries for innovation and competition.
Another important aspect of the legal system is its fundamental transparency. Laws and regulations are publicly accessible and can be viewed by anyone interested, for example via the Internet. This clearly defines which rules apply and what they say. Even if hardly anyone knows all the standards in detail, it is still possible to find out about them. This openness creates reliability: everyone can trust that there are binding and comprehensible rules that govern everyone's behavior. Without such defined and accessible rules, social life would quickly become confusing and uncertain, as no one would know exactly where they stand.
For craftsman A, the transparency of legal regulations means that he can find out about the regulations relevant to his work. He can view the trade regulations, tax regulations, labor regulations, and data protection laws online and understand what obligations he has. When developing new products, he can also research which patents already exist and which legal framework conditions apply to his innovation. Although the wealth of regulations is complex, they are publicly accessible and comprehensible. This creates a clear framework in which he can start and run his business without having to rely on informal agreements or uncertain legal situations.
Law and other social norms
Law is just one of several forms of social norms that govern behavior in a society. However, it differs fundamentally from other types of rules. Law consists of rules set by the state, laid down in writing, and generally binding. Violations of these rules can be punished by state authority. This gives the law a special binding force and enforceability.
For craftsman A, this means that the legal regulations for his business are binding. He cannot simply ignore them if a rule seems impractical to him. For example, he must comply with safety standards even if he personally considers them excessive, and pay taxes regardless of whether he considers them fair. If he violates these rules, the state can intervene, impose fines, or order measures to be taken. Unlike moral or traditional expectations, which he can choose to follow voluntarily, he must comply with legal regulations because they are enforced by state authority.
In addition, there are morals and traditions. These are social rules based on shared values, customs, or cultural practices. Moral or traditional norms can be very effective, but are not usually enforced by state coercion. Violations tend to lead to social disapproval, loss of trust, or exclusion, but not to penalties imposed by authorities.
For craftsman A, for example, there is an unspoken expectation that he will treat customers politely and respectfully. If he were to regularly behave in a rude or quick-tempered manner, this would not have any legal consequences. Apart from the extreme case of dangerous threats or insults, there is no law that requires him to be friendly. Nevertheless, his behavior would probably lead to a loss of trust, customers would leave, and his reputation in the community would suffer. Moral and traditional norms work here through social reactions, not legal sanctions.
Ethics concern personal feelings of justice and individual reflection on what is right and wrong. Ethics can go beyond or contradict law and morality. Their enforcement is based solely on one's own conscience and not on external coercion.
For craftsman A, an ethical rule might be to consciously use environmentally friendly materials, even if this is more expensive and not required by law. He does this out of personal conviction because he believes it is right to conserve resources and protect future generations. No one forces him to do so, and there are no legal consequences if he does not. This decision is based solely on his own sense of justice and his ethics of responsibility.
State monopoly on the use of force
Law is closely linked to the question of who is allowed to use force to enforce rules. In a constitutional state, the state alone has a monopoly on the use of force. This means that only state organs—such as the police, courts, or administrative authorities—have the right to use coercion to enforce laws or punish violations of the law.
For craftsman A, the state's monopoly on the use of force means that he cannot enforce legal requirements himself, but is bound by state procedures. If, for example, he violates labor or trade law regulations, the competent authorities can intervene, impose conditions, or impose sanctions. Likewise, he may not act on his own authority if others do not comply with the rules, but must turn to state authorities. The police, administrative authorities, and courts are the only bodies that are legally permitted to use coercion. This makes it clear that the state's monopoly on the use of force also forms the binding framework for entrepreneurial activity.
This monopoly on the use of force has a decisive advantage: private use of force is prohibited. No one is allowed to impose penalties or resolve conflicts by force on their own authority. This prevents individual power interests or acts of revenge from prevailing.
For craftsman A, the advantage of the state's monopoly on the use of force becomes particularly clear when a customer fails to pay their bill. A is not allowed to use force to collect the outstanding amount, threaten the customer, or put them under pressure, but must initiate legal proceedings, such as a reminder and, if necessary, civil proceedings. Conversely, however, the customer is also not allowed to react arbitrarily or impose their own “penalties.” The resolution of such conflicts lies exclusively with the state authorities. This prevents economic disputes from escalating into private power struggles or the use of force, and creates a binding, neutral framework for the enforcement of claims.
Despite its many advantages, a legal system also has a disadvantage: state power is itself a powerful instrument that can deeply interfere with the rights of individuals—for example, through penalties, coercive measures, or administrative acts.
For craftsman A, state authority can also have a negative effect if it were not bound by rules. Suppose a tax office employee has a personal dislike of A and arbitrarily decides to impose double the tax burden on him. However, such action is not permissible in a constitutional state. Tax assessment is based on clear legal guidelines, and the authorities are obliged to determine the actual tax burden correctly. A also has the option of reviewing tax assessments and, if necessary, appealing them. This prevents state power from being used arbitrarily or for personal motives.
A central element of the rule of law is the possibility of having government actions independently reviewed. Authorities and administrations are not infallible, which is why there are bodies that monitor their decisions. This monitoring is carried out by courts that act independently of the state and measure its actions against the law. This ensures that state power is not unlimited, but bound and subject to review.
If the tax office is indeed acting arbitrarily and imposing an unjustifiably high tax burden on A, he can appeal against this. He has the right to contest the decision and have it reviewed by a court. In Austria, he can appeal to the tax court and ultimately to the administrative court, which will examine whether the tax office acted correctly and complied with the legal requirements. This ensures that A is not left unprotected against wrong decisions by the administration, but has a regulated review procedure at his disposal.
Over time, some ethical or moral rules have developed into legally binding norms. What was initially based on personal conviction or religious (moral) practice became widely accepted by society and was eventually enshrined in law. In this way, an ethical ideal can become a legal obligation.
For craftsman A, this is evident, for example, in the area of occupational safety. In the past, it was largely a matter of personal responsibility to create safe working conditions and to look after the health of employees. Today, many of these measures are regulated by law: safety regulations, working time limits, and accident prevention are mandatory. What was originally based on ethical considerations is now part of the binding legal framework that A must comply with.
Acceptance and compliance with rules
The acceptance of legal norms is based largely on the understanding that they serve the common good. People are more willing to follow rules if they perceive them to be fair, necessary, or sensible. Another factor is the expectation of consequences for violations, whether in the form of government sanctions or social disapproval.
An example of this can be seen in craftsman A's approach to safety regulations for his workshop. He understands that these rules are not just bureaucracy, but serve to protect his employees and customers. This understanding increases his willingness to comply with the regulations carefully. At the same time, he knows that violations will not go unpunished: failure to comply could result in official inspections, fines, or even the closure of his business. His social environment—such as other businesses or customers—would also view his actions negatively if he acted negligently. The combination of understanding the purpose of the rules and the expectation of tangible consequences strengthens his acceptance of and compliance with the regulations.
A functioning legal system requires trust in the fairness and impartiality of state institutions. When people can understand how decisions are made and are confident that rules are applied fairly, they are more willing to comply with them. Conversely, perceived injustice, corruption, or lack of transparency leads to rules being questioned or deliberately disregarded.
A negative example can be seen when craftsman A gets the impression that the tax authorities treat him differently from his competitors. Suppose that during a tax audit, A is strictly checked and sanctioned for the smallest formal errors, while a neighboring business gets away with similar violations because it has personal contacts at the tax office. A experiences this as unfair and arbitrary. As a result, his trust in the impartiality of state institutions declines. He begins to take the rules less seriously, complies with them only formally, or looks for loopholes himself.
