“some individuals need more laws - some less”.

This may be true to some extent, but there are real problems with placing people under different restrictions. You have got to be very careful about that.

Besides, how would you pick who is really honest enough to be placed under minimal restrictions and who isn’t? There are plenty of examples of trust being abused and of people who are excellent humanitarians in some ways but crooks in others.

The fact that we have a reasonable system of law is why we have a minority of dishonest people. Without laws or with a poorer system, more people would become dishonest. Arguably they would have to or they would be left at a significant disadvantage.

One of the glaring examples of this is speed limits. The majority of people are highly dishonest when it comes to the actual law because they exceed speed limits by a few kmh all the time. But if they drove a few kmh under, to make sure they never actually broke the law, they would get tailgated and treated with contempt, and would actually be driving in a less safe manner.

You cannot separate the good folk and the crooks. Very few people are innately entirely good. The majority of us are opportunistic to some extent and will break the law if we perceive that there is a real benefit in doing so and that the chances of repercussions are small.

Thus I would say to you that the law MUST apply equally to all as far as is possible, with a few exceptions. One exception is when people have been shown to be offenders or at least repeat offenders. In many instances they should be under tighter restrictions. Another is for people under age, with respect to alcohol, driving, voting, etc.

The idea of having a whole upper class, which enjoys considerably less legal restrictions is I think a dangerous concept. It would be a blatant move towards inequality, which would no doubt have serious repercussions.