VOLUME V, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 3
No One Is Without Fault, and So the Law Is Never Perfect
The previous section spoke of how the law does not punish the crowd. Yet where does this boundary come from, and where are its roots? This section digs to the deepest place. The deepest foundation of law is not systems, nor procedures, but human beings. Those who write laws are not perfect, those who enforce laws are not perfect, those who judge cases are not perfect, and those who obey laws are not perfect. Because human beings are not perfect, the law is never perfect. This is not pessimism. It is clarity, and it is the deepest foundation laid down along this journey.
One. This Simplest Phrase Carries the Deepest Foundation
The saying that no one is perfect has been spoken by ordinary people for a thousand years, so simple that it carries almost no weight. Parents say it when comforting children, friends say it when comforting each other, and people say it in self-explanation after failure. Heard too often, it gets worn down into everyday chicken soup for the soul.
Yet this phrase is precisely where the previous sections land. Every layer established earlier, natural law, wei, whom the law serves, law must pass through human feeling, and law has a natural boundary, stands firmly on the position of human beings. Those who write laws are human beings, those who enforce laws are human beings, those who judge cases are human beings, and those who obey laws are human beings, and no human being is perfect. Taking this phrase off the dining table and bringing it back into law makes it heavy to hold.
The simpler the phrase, the easier it is to hear and forget, yet this very phrase supports the weight of the dozen or more chapters that follow.
Two. Mainstream Jurisprudence Hides an Assumption That Law Can Be Continuously Perfected
Open a standard jurisprudence textbook, and discussions center on how to perfect the law, how to prevent judicial corruption, how to raise enforcement efficiency, and how to establish legal authority. Beneath all these discussions lies an identical assumption: that a legal system can be continuously improved through institutional design, oversight mechanisms, and professional training, eventually approaching a well-functioning state.
Yet the ancestors saw clearly that this assumption itself is the problem. No matter how systems are designed, how oversight is tightened, or how training is formalized, at the very end execution comes back to human beings, and the human link cannot be perfected to zero deviation.
Machines can be calibrated to zero error. Human beings cannot. As long as human beings exist in the loop, deviation cannot be scrubbed clean. This is not the fault of any individual, but the nature of human material itself.
Three. Looking at Xunzi's Line Again from Another Angle
Around three hundred years before the common era, Xunzi wrote a line in the Human Nature Is Evil chapter, cited earlier.
Human nature is evil, and its goodness is wei. Xunzi, Xunzi, Human Nature Is Evil.
Xunzi was not saying all human beings are inherently malicious. He was saying human nature carries self-interest, contentiousness, and partiality, which are natural rather than taught, whereas goodness is wei, crafted through education, ritual, and self-cultivation. Applying this layer to law clarifies a whole row of positions.
Lawmakers are human beings, naturally carrying self-interest, consciously or unconsciously embedding their own group interests into law. Enforcers are human beings, naturally carrying partiality, acting lighter toward acquaintances and stricter toward strangers. Judges are human beings, naturally limited, able to rule only on the evidence before them, which may be incomplete. Citizens are human beings, naturally inclined to take chances, thinking that if no one sees this time it will be fine. Every layer consists of human beings, and every layer can lean to one side. This is the concrete landing of no one is perfect within law, not abstract soup, but real occurrences happening every second in every concrete case.
These four layers of deviation need not come from intentional malice. Most occur unconsciously, and precisely because they are unconscious, they are even harder to guard against.
Four. Confucius and Mencius Placed Themselves Very Low
Around five hundred years before the common era, Confucius spoke a line that is often overlooked.
I am fortunate. If I make a mistake, people are sure to know it. Confucius, The Analects, Shu Er.
Confucius said I am fortunate, for whenever I make a mistake, others are sure to see it. Confucius is recognized across thousands of years of Chinese thought as the supreme sage, yet his self-description was that he too made mistakes, only others would see them. He did not position himself as a perfect person.
Around three hundred years before the common era, Mencius wrote another passage.
The gentlemen of old corrected their mistakes when they made them. The gentlemen of today persist in their mistakes. Mencius, Mencius, Gongsun Chou II.
Mencius said ancient gentlemen corrected their errors when made, whereas modern gentlemen persisted in their errors. He did not claim gentlemen made no errors. He acknowledged that gentlemen made errors too, dividing them into two kinds: those who corrected them and those who did not. The two highest sages in Chinese thought never assumed themselves or anyone else to be perfect. All human beings make mistakes, and the only difference lies in whether someone points them out and whether one is willing to correct them.
Five. A Line from Laozi Answers This Layer Most Deeply
Around five hundred years before the common era, Laozi spoke a simpler line.
He who knows others is wise. He who knows himself is enlightened. Laozi, Dao De Jing, Chapter 33.
Seeing others clearly is wisdom. Seeing oneself clearly is enlightenment. The phrase knowing oneself is enlightenment is the deepest response to no one is perfect in Chinese thought. A person who sees his own imperfection clearly is genuinely enlightened. One who cannot, no matter how clever, possesses only wisdom, not enlightenment.
The highest realm of a lawmaker is not writing the most comprehensive law, but knowing that he himself is not perfect. The highest realm of an enforcer is not executing every line most strictly, but knowing that he carries partiality. The highest realm of a judge is not ruling fastest and most decisively, but knowing that the facts before him may be incomplete. Laws written, enforced, and judged by people who know they are imperfect stand closer to natural law than those created by people who assume themselves perfect.
A reverse truth resides here: those who assume themselves most perfect often act with the heaviest hand, because they do not believe they can be wrong and therefore leave no door open for correcting errors.
Six. Sima Qian Laid Out Achievements and Errors Together for Every Person
Around one hundred years before the common era, Sima Qian turned this layer into the simplest practice across a thousand years in the Records of the Grand Historian. In writing about every figure, he wrote about their errors. Writing about Confucius, he included his failed travels across states and his embarrassment at not being accepted by rulers. Writing about Liu Bang, he included his commoner vulgarity and suspicion of loyal officials. Writing about Emperor Wu of Han, he included his grand ambition, depletion of the populace, and late-life regrets at Luntai. Writing about Xiao He, he included his great service alongside his purchasing of land to tarnish his own name for self-preservation. Writing about Han Xin, he included his military genius alongside his political naivety. Writing about Shang Yang, he included his reform achievements alongside his death by being torn apart by chariots.
Sima Qian offered no commentary, placing achievements and errors side by side for every person. No one was perfect. Everyone had merits and faults, light and dark. Upon reading the Records of the Grand Historian, readers understand naturally that there are no perfect human beings in the world, but there are those who know they are imperfect yet continue to act, and those who assume themselves perfect and commit harm. The difference between the two forms the true watershed of history.
A judge who knows he might misjudge will leave three degrees of leeway in his pen. A judge confident he never misjudges will not listen to a single word from others even when wrong. The difference lies not in capability, but in that small degree of self-knowledge.
Seven. A Line from Wang Yangming Points to the Deepest Root of Legal Abuse
Around 1500, Wang Yangming wrote a line while leading troops to suppress bandits.
It is easy to defeat the bandits in the mountains. It is difficult to defeat the bandits in the heart. Wang Yangming, Letter to Yang Shide and Xue Shangqian.
Defeating bandits in the mountains is easy, but defeating bandits in the heart is hard. Applying this line to law: external violations are easy to investigate, arrest, and sentence, but the inner mind that assumes itself perfect cannot be investigated, arrested, or sentenced. Yet that mind is the true root of all legal abuse.
If a lawmaker assumes himself perfect, the laws he writes become overly strict and detailed, viewing everyone as a potential violator. If an enforcer assumes himself perfect, his enforcement becomes overly harsh and aggressive, turning every act of enforcement into a disaster for others. If a judge assumes himself perfect, his rulings become overly rapid and arbitrary, committing misjudgments without even realizing it. The deepest layer of wei in the entire legal system is not the deviation of written texts, but the position of assuming oneself perfect inside the minds of those who write, enforce, and judge law. Correcting errors in written law is easy. Defeating the bandit in the human heart that assumes itself perfect is hard.
Eight. Turning the Lens Westward Runs into the Exact Same Cycle
Around 1788, James Madison wrote a passage in Federalist No. 51 that laid down this layer clearly.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. James Madison, Federalist No. 51.
Madison went on to explain that precisely because human beings are not angels, government is necessary, and at the same time government itself must be constrained. He was not saying government is a necessary evil, but that human beings are imperfect, making government necessary while simultaneously requiring constraints on government. This layer belongs to the exact same thread as the vision of the Chinese ancestors, expressed in two languages regarding the same reality.
Yet once this layer is set, going further down runs into a cycle. Those who draft constitutions admit human beings are imperfect and design systems of checks and balances. Yet those who execute those systems are still human beings, none of whom are perfect. Accumulated over centuries, the force of checks and balances slowly dulls, and deviations slowly accumulate. This is not a defect unique to any single nation. No system escapes it. Remonstrating officials, inspectors, and recusal rules established throughout Chinese history were similarly executed by human beings and similarly dulled over time.
Acknowledging that no human being is perfect leads to establishing systems of constraint. Those who establish systems are human beings, so systems are imperfect too. Those who execute them are human beings, so execution leans to one side. When execution leans, new systems are established, and those who establish new systems are still human beings. This cycle has no endpoint, and no one should expect a system to solve matters once and for all.
Nine. The Position Set by This Section
This section sets the seventh layer: the deepest foundation of law is that no one is perfect. Those who write laws are not perfect, so legislation is never perfect. Those who enforce laws are not perfect, so enforcement always carries deviation. Those who judge cases are not perfect, so rulings can always be wrong. Those who obey laws are not perfect, so compliance always carries the urge to take a chance. From the supreme constitution down to the finest detail of execution, every link consists of human beings, and every link can lean to one side.
Acknowledging this layer is not pessimism, but clarity. Denying this layer is not optimism, but blindness. Sober legislation is enacted with restraint, leaving room for future adjustment. Blind legislation is enacted with rigidity, leaving no room, embedding its own imperfection as absolute truth. Sober laws endure for a thousand or two thousand years. Blind laws often collapse within decades. Confucius speaking of being fortunate that errors are known, Mencius speaking of correcting errors, Xunzi speaking of human nature being evil and its goodness being wei, Laozi speaking of self-knowledge being enlightenment, Sima Qian writing out both merits and errors, Wang Yangming speaking of defeating the bandit in the heart, and Madison speaking of men not being angels belong to the exact same thread across two thousand years, East and West.
Here, combine the entire row of foundations established previously. The highest position of law is natural law. Law is wei, a human-made matter. Whom law serves is decided by human position. Law must pass through human feeling, and human feeling is also wei. Law has a natural boundary, meaning the law does not punish the crowd. The deepest foundation of law is that no one is perfect. These layers build from the highest to the deepest, from the first layer to the seventh layer, forming a complete net. No layer can stand alone. Only when six sections and seven layers come together can one see clearly what law actually is.
This section does not ask readers to be pessimistic, nor to abandon law, but to view law with clarity. When reading a law in the future, observe whether those who wrote it, those who enforce it, and those who judge cases under it realize in their hearts that they are not perfect. Once observed, you will understand which laws stand firm and which laws wobble.
The next section connects this net into the larger net of the entire book, speaking of how four institutions, culture, economics, politics, and law, support each other. Law never operates in isolation. It functions together with the other three institutions. Take this full set of tools, natural law, wei, whom law serves, human feeling, boundaries, and no one is perfect, and step into the next section.
Credit to the ancestors; the mistakes are mine: Tiger Lyon.
Chapter Three. Law Inside the Web, and How a Person Lives Within It.