You’ve probably seen the quote on a tote bag or a law school syllabus. It’s one of the most biting pieces of sarcasm ever written about the legal system. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
That’s Anatole France. He wrote it in 1894 in his novel The Red Lily. Over a century later, it’s still the most efficient way to describe how "neutral" rules often produce devastatingly unequal results. It’s a gut punch. It’s also a masterclass in understanding the difference between formal equality and substantive justice.
Laws aren't just words on a page. They’re filters. When a filter has a specific mesh size, it doesn't care what kind of liquid you pour through it; it only cares about the size of the particles. But if one person is pouring water and the other is pouring thick sludge, the "equal" filter treats them very differently.
What People Get Wrong About Legal Neutrality
Most people think the problem with the legal system is that it's biased. And sure, human bias exists. But the "majestic equality" problem is actually the opposite: the law is often too blind.
When we talk about the law in its majestic equality, we’re talking about formalism. This is the idea that the law should be applied exactly the same way to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. On the surface, that sounds fair. We want judges to be impartial, right? We want the rules to be the same for the CEO and the cashier.
But here’s the rub. If you fine a billionaire $500 for speeding, it’s a rounding error. It’s less than the cost of their lunch. If you fine a single mother working two jobs $500, you might have just evicted her. The law "equally" charges them both $500. The impact, however, is worlds apart.
The Bread-Stealing Paradox
France’s example of stealing bread is the perfect entry point. If a wealthy person steals a loaf of bread, it’s likely a thrill-seek or a mental health crisis. If a starving person steals bread, it’s survival. The law treats both as "theft."
Is that just?
Some legal scholars, like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that the "rule of law" requires this kind of rigid consistency. The moment you start making exceptions for people's bank accounts, you open the door to chaos and subjective whim. Others, following the tradition of Legal Realism, argue that ignoring the social context of a crime makes the law a tool of oppression rather than a shield for the innocent.
👉 See also: Jeff Pike Bandidos MC: What Really Happened to the Texas Biker Boss
Real-World Examples of "Majestic Equality" Today
We don't talk about sleeping under bridges as much these days, but the principle is alive and well in modern policy. Take cash bail.
In many jurisdictions, if two people are arrested for the same non-violent offense, a judge might set bail at $1,000. Under the law in its majestic equality, both defendants have the "equal" right to pay that money and go home to prepare for their trial.
Except one person has $1,000 in their savings account. They pay and leave. The other person doesn't have $50, let alone $1,000. They sit in a cell for weeks or months. They lose their job. They lose custody of their kids. They eventually plead guilty just to get out.
The law was equal. The outcome was a catastrophe for one and a minor inconvenience for the other.
The Vagrancy Laws of the 21st Century
Look at "camping bans" in cities like Los Angeles or Seattle. These laws forbid anyone from pitching a tent on public property.
Technically, these laws apply to everyone. If a millionaire decided to pitch a North Face tent on a sidewalk for fun, they’d be ticketed. But millionaires don’t do that. These laws are designed for a specific class of people, yet they are written in "neutral" language to survive constitutional challenges.
This is what France was mocking. By phrasing a law so it applies to "everyone," the state can target the marginalized without technically violating the principle of equal protection.
Why We Still Use This System
You might wonder why we don't just fix it. Why not have "sliding scale" laws?
✨ Don't miss: January 6th Explained: Why This Date Still Defines American Politics
Some countries actually do this. In Finland and Switzerland, speeding tickets are often based on your income. In 2023, a Finnish businessman was fined over $120,000 for going about 20 mph over the limit.
Why doesn't the U.S. do this?
- Administrative Complexity: It’s hard to verify everyone’s income on the fly for every minor infraction.
- The "Fairness" Argument: There is a deeply ingrained belief in many Western legal traditions that the state should not "notice" wealth. To some, charging a rich person more is a violation of their right to equality.
- Incentives: Governments often rely on fines for revenue. If they only collected what the poor could afford, budgets would crater. If they only targeted the rich, the rich would use their political power to change the laws.
The Role of Discretion
If the law itself is stubbornly "equal," the only way to get actual justice is through discretion.
This is where police officers, prosecutors, and judges come in. A prosecutor can look at the person who stole the bread and decide not to file charges. A judge can look at a defendant and waive the fines.
But discretion is a double-edged sword. When we rely on individuals to "soften" the law’s majestic equality, we reintroduce human bias. Statistics consistently show that discretion often benefits people who look like the people in power.
So we’re stuck in a loop. Strict equality is cruel. Discretion is biased.
Moving Toward Substantive Equality
The solution isn't to get rid of equality, but to change how we define it.
Legal scholars often distinguish between Formal Equality (treating everyone the same) and Substantive Equality (taking steps to achieve equal outcomes).
🔗 Read more: Is there a bank holiday today? Why your local branch might be closed on January 12
If you want to truly honor the spirit of the law, you have to look at the starting line. If one person starts the race at the 50-yard line and the other starts 10 yards behind the blocks, "equal" rules for the race won't make it a fair contest.
Actionable Insights for Navigating an "Equal" System
Understanding the law in its majestic equality isn't just about philosophy. It's about knowing how to protect yourself and advocate for change.
Know Your Local "Neutral" Ordinances Be aware that many city ordinances—loitering, jaywalking, "public nuisance" laws—are often used as tools for selective enforcement. If you are in a position of advocacy, look for laws that use neutral language to target specific groups.
Support Pro-Bono and Legal Aid The biggest gap in the "majestic equality" of the law is the right to counsel. In criminal cases, you get a lawyer. In civil cases (eviction, debt collection, child custody), you often don't. Supporting organizations like the Legal Services Corporation helps level the playing field.
Advocate for Income-Based Fines Look into "Day-Fines." This is the system used in parts of Europe where a fine is calculated based on a person’s daily income. It’s the most direct way to dismantle the sarcasm of Anatole France and make the law actually fair.
Question "Neutral" Policy at Work This concept applies outside the courtroom too. If your workplace has an "equal" policy—like requiring everyone to work from an office—it might disproportionately affect employees with disabilities or childcare responsibilities. Realize that treating everyone the same is often the easiest way to be unfair.
The law will always struggle with the tension between being a set of rigid rules and a tool for human justice. Recognizing the "majestic equality" for what it is—a warning, not an ideal—is the first step toward building a system that actually sees the people it's meant to serve.
Next Steps for Further Understanding:
- Research the "Day-Fine" system to see how it might be implemented in your local municipality.
- Audit your organization's internal policies for "neutral" rules that create unequal barriers for different groups of people.
- Read The Red Lily by Anatole France to understand the full social context in which his famous quote was written.
- Volunteer with a local court watch program to see firsthand how "equal" laws are applied to people from different economic backgrounds in your community.