A question (mostly) for AC'ers, about the rule of law.

[VarlosZ]

A few days ago the Welsh government slaughtered a (literal) sacred cow because it tested positive for tuberculosis. The Hindu temple that kept the cow protested the slaughter (in both the media and the courts), but lost its fight.

I take it as as a given that AC'ers don't think the state shoud be slaughtering people's livestock against their wishes. I also assume that some will agree with me that, by itself, sparing this particular cow would be +EV (weighing the risk presented by the disease against the unusual amount of anguish that would be caused by the slaughter).

Given that, would you prefer that the officials who carry out the law make an exception in this case and others like it, or would you prefer that they stick to the letter of the law?

It seems to me that, no matter how much you despise the law and the state that enforces it, you should want it to be uniformily enforced in this and other relatively minor cases. If the executors of the law are able to disregard it when you think it's a good idea, then they will also be able to disregard it when you think it's a bad idea -- and, significantly, this includes instances in which the officials are malicous, self-serving, or otherwise corrupt. Whatever its failures, government is much more odious without the rule of law, and sacrificing a cow that, on balance, should probably have been spared is a small price to pay to stay true to that ideal.