Limitations of Law

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the effectiveness of laws, prompted by frustrations with rules and regulations that seem to hinder rather than help what is in the best interest of the majority. One vivid example comes from my parents’ experience as homeowners renting out their home in California.

They rented to two sisters who seemed financially stable, paying a deposit and the first few months’ rent upfront. But soon after, they stopped paying rent and refused to leave. As it turned out, these sisters had a history of exploiting California’s tenancy protection laws, designed to shield vulnerable tenants from unscrupulous landlords. While my parents did nothing wrong, the law was not on their side. After several months of stress and legal fees that far outweighed the rent they’d received, my parents finally managed to regain possession of their home.

This experience showed me how well-intentioned laws can fail in practice. Laws meant to protect the vulnerable can become tools for exploitation when their wording is manipulated or misinterpreted. As laws grow increasingly complex to address these gaps, they often lose sight of their original intent. Instead of delivering fairness, they become convoluted rules that burden the honest while leaving room for the unscrupulous to thrive.

Most landlords are not wealthy tycoons but everyday people who rely on rental income to cover their mortgages. When laws blanketly side with tenants, assuming they are always the ones in need of protection, it creates an imbalance. I’m not suggesting we ignore the plight of vulnerable renters. Helping the needy and protecting the weak are important. But somewhere along the way, we seem to have focused too much on political correctness and trendy notions, forgetting to ask: What is fair?

This isn’t unique to California. In South Korea, labor laws tell a similar story. Unlike the “at-will” contracts common in the United States, Korean labor laws impose strict and prohibitive conditions on layoffs, even during financial hardship. While this aims to prevent unscrupulous employers from firing employees at will to maximize profits, it also makes it incredibly difficult for businesses to adapt during downturns.

In response, many shrewd businesses have resorted to hiring contract workers instead of full-time employees or subcontracting work to smaller firms. These strategies help businesses circumvent strict labor laws but come at a significant cost. Contract and subcontract workers often face tougher working conditions, reduced job security, and fewer benefits compared to their full-time counterparts. This shift has also led to an erosion in the quality of goods and services as subcontractors may lack the resources or incentive to maintain the same standards as in-house teams.

Meanwhile, honorable businesses that follow the rules and try to weather financial storms find themselves at a disadvantage. Companies that might have survived 12 months with a reduced workforce are forced to shut down earlier before they can stabilize, losing the chance to grow into more resilient enterprises. In the end, these laws, while designed to protect workers, can inadvertently create an environment where the most vulnerable suffer even more, while businesses that cut corners thrive.

So I keep coming back to the same questions: What is fair? What did we set out to do with these laws in the first place? I hope those who practice law and those who create laws never lose sight of why these laws exist.

Laws were created to provide a fair playing field, ensuring that people could live together peacefully in a fair society. They were meant to discourage harmful behavior through consequences deemed universally unacceptable. But as with any system, some will always try to calculate whether breaking the rules is worth the risk. Worse yet, some avoid consequences altogether through legal technicalities or reduced penalties if they can afford to pay for good lawyers or ones with connections. Is this really working? I don’t believe so—but perhaps it’s the best we’ve got for now.

Yet, I believe there’s a better way forward. Teaching ethics and emphasizing civic duties addresses the source of the problem, rather than merely patching up the symptoms. As medical research has shown, treating the root cause of an illness is far more effective than simply masking its symptoms. In the same way, equipping people with a strong moral compass and a sense of social responsibility can prevent many of the issues laws are designed to address.

This need is especially urgent as societies become increasingly atheistic. Traditional anchors of morality, often tied to religious teachings, are losing influence. Without these shared moral frameworks, future generations may lack the guidance needed to make ethical decisions and contribute to the well-being of society. It’s essential to guide them with a clear moral compass, grounded not in fear of punishment but in the understanding of what it means to live well as part of a community.

We need to make ethics and civic duties foundational in general education, teaching everyone what it means to live as a member of a society. Just as we teach math and science, we should teach fairness, empathy, and social responsibility. Let us celebrate those who demonstrate good civic behavior—everyday heroes who show us what it means to be model citizens. The news should highlight their stories, inspiring others to follow their example.

In the end, laws can only guide us so far. What truly builds a harmonious society is not the threat of punishment but the understanding of why fairness matters and the willingness to act on it. That understanding starts with education, grows through example, and thrives when fairness becomes our shared goal.