Within the series of videos on subjects that allow us to get to know each other better, we are going to address the subject of “the law as an argument”. As a liberal (in economics and customs) I want to make my opinion very clear that we need to comply with the laws in order to have a minimum of conditions for coexistence and organization in a civilized society. However, I understand that when someone argues using the law as an argument, it is because he has no more arguments. It is good to remember that laws are made, in large part, to defend interests and establish a balance of interests that allow governance, which vary greatly in time and space. Many laws that would exist today do not exist or may even come back into existence. In Brazil gambling has already been allowed in some places (time and space). It can be again. Tobacco smoke and alcohol are halfway between legal and illegal. Owning slaves was once considered legal. Woman voting was inconceivable. Are different taxes desirable? Or they are pretty excuses to sell favors. Are rights privileges or privileges rights? Anyway, what is legal here today, tomorrow may not be there or vice versa. Of the laws that supported some of these situations, some were ethically and logically defensible, others were not, they were just questions of customs or passing interests.