Dale’s entry about the Bill Frist stock sale reminds us that the application of the law often is political in nature. “Insider trading” is not well defined in the law, which serves the purposes of prosecutors and the SEC.

The larger issue here, however, is not that Martha Stewart was investigated (and charged with a crime) and Frist has not been charged (as of yet), but why we charge people with this “crime” at all. Yes, if Frist gets the same treatment as Martha Stewart, it might be a sort of “rough justice,” but actually the rule of law is further imperiled (as though anything could make our situation worse than it already is).

Now, I suspect that a lot of readers would be very happy to see Frist in the dock, but I would not be one of them. If I was against the Stewart investigation and prosecution, then I would have to be against Frist being investigated, too.I do not believe that we have any other choice if we are to have any integrity at all. One of the reasons that I have been attracted to the libertarians and Austrians has been that they generally are people who are guided by principles, not politics.

Once we begin to use political calculations, then we are no better than the people we criticize — and probably worse. Now, the Salem Witch Trials ended only after the accusers began to go after some of the better-connected people in town. Likewise, perhaps the only way to kill insider trading laws would be for high-ranking, politically-connected people to be taken down.

However, from what I can see, prominent people already ARE being prosecuted for alleged acts of “criminality,” but the public is clamoring for even more. Thus, this “bread and circuses” approach to law will bring all of us down.