It is widely, and rightly, regarded as desirable to live under the rule of law, rather than living subject to the arbitrary will and decisions of a despot, or despotic government. In a natural law setting this contrast is easy to understand, since the natural or divine law has a quite different pedigree from human directives. It is not so straightforward once it is realized that in the real world it is not ‘law’ as an abstraction, but people, who make laws and exercise coercive power over those who break them. However, it remains possible to identify a combination of elements that go to make up what is called the rule of law. One essential would be the equal status of all citizens before the law. Another would be an independent judiciary, able to make effective legal determinations without direct reference to the current wishes of the legislature or the sovereign. A further element might be that the legislature or the sovereign power feels bound to accord with precedents and to traditional forms of reasoning, as embedded in common law, or constitutional constraints. Amongst other things this gives the kind of security about the future that makes sensible investment possible. Yet another would be the opportunity for free public knowledge and free public scrutiny of the results, and a legislature that is ultimately beholden to a democratic electoral system. These elements can be recognized even by legal positivists, and a combination of them makes up the rule of law. See also law, philosophy of; positivism (legal).