> I taught my kids the rule of law and what's right and wrong or desirable are totally separate concepts.

You should be careful to distinguish "rule of law" from the law itself.

Rule of law is merely the principle that laws should be applied equally to all. It shouldn't matter if you're rich or poor, man or woman, a member of the majority or minority race, famous or obscure, politically well-connected or not, etc. This is an inherently just principle, but it's also extremely difficult (impossible?) to live up to 100%.

On the other hand, you're correct that individual laws can be just or unjust, moral or immoral. We have plenty of historical examples of unjust laws (e.g., a recent and hopefully unquestionable example in living memory is segregation), and it's our duty to oppose them through voting, contacting representatives, protests, and perhaps even civil disobedience.

▲

leereeves 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Rule of law is merely the principle that laws should be applied equally to all.

Which sounds good at first, but...

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." ― Anatole France

	▲	atmavatar 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"To my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" -- Oscar Benavides You have to both apply the law equally to all and apply equitable criminal penalties for breaking the law, but the latter is pretty useless without the former. In that way, you could say that honoring the rule of law is necessary but not sufficient for truly equal treatment under the law.