Frederick Turner at Tech Central Station (Tiananmen in London)writes about the displays of hatred directed at George Bush around the world. He goes into depth about two different concepts of law: the Law of Good and the Law of Right. Read the article as it would be much more enlightening than the paltry summation I'll make below.
Essentially, the Law of Good calls on the power of the government to coerce the individuals living under the state to comport themselves in a moral way. In short, immoral is illegal.
The Law of Right, on the other hand, contents itself with enforcing agreements between individuals. Also, the Law of Right seeks to prevent one individual from infringing upon the rights of another.
A key assumption under the Law of Right is that the individual is sovreign within himself, and that it makes no claim within that sphere of influence. Only when the individual conducts dealings with another individual, carries out an agreement between one sovreign being and another, does the Law of Right claim influence.
This relationship is therefore federal in nature. Much like a state can (should be able to) decide the laws within its borders while the National government will only (should only) intervene where borders are crossed. In this way, the good is ultimately served on all levels of interaction by acting on the levels where they are most effective. More on that thought later.
Link via Instapundit.com:.