Hendrik Hoet 0103

I often think about the example of my own family. As children – there were eight of us – we used to make a lot of trouble, that’s a fact! And then father - or mother - would intervene, to make it clear how to behave. But there was no court in our family. Of course, that was because in a sense our father was the judge. But when we didn’t fight, when we got along, then father didn’t need to intervene. Then there was no need for law enforcement. But we never laid down rules at home or conceived of a book of law, because of course father laid down the law. But my point is: if you spontaneously live according to the laws, then there is no need for laws. As long as people do not fight there is no need for laws and enforcement. These were only necessary because the strongest dictated the law and the weakest always suffered. But if everybody has a genuine concern for the other then you don’t need law enforcement. You could call that anarchy – or no need for law, but this is only possible…

 
Question: Is this not a process, in the sense that it is the end point of a long road that we have to travel, but when you get stuck half way it is still necessary to have at least some rules and principles in order to guide people?
 
Hoet: Of course! You could also say: I want what is best for you. But what is best for you? And that naturally brings us into dialogue, because then you have to talk, you have to ask for it. People always think that they can speak in the name
of another, and that they know what is best for the other. And there are certain moments… I spoke about children, didn’t I? Children cannot yet know themselves what is best for them. This is the challenge that humanity faces: that it always has new generations needing to be educated. And what is good for the other? What does it mean to want the best for the other, or to want life for the other? We will be arguing about that for a long time to come! That is why we need law, and why we need to discuss things and talk to one another.

<<< back