Why are there no laws rewarding people
<p>It might sound like a stupid question, but I am not a legal expert. The positive laws prohibit certain acts and punish those who perform the acts. However, do the laws always prohibit and punish? And why there are no laws about rewarding people who perform certain acts that were deemed good.</p>

<h2>There are plenty of laws that reward people</h2>
<p>These include:</p>
<ol>
<li>Literal rewards - payment for information leading to an arrest/conviction.</li>
<li>Welfare systems - the government is literally paying money in accordance with the law.</li>
<li>Tax breaks - for example, for R&amp;D.</li>
<li>Government grants.</li>
<li>Rebates - anything from health insurance premiums to child care subsidies.</li>
</ol>

<p>In the UK, judges sitting on criminal cases can award cash sums to individuals for exceptionally public-spirited actions which have come to light during the trial. For many years the customary sum was £50, but it seems to be £200 these days. Such awards are rare enough to get in the newspapers.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.birminghammail.co.uk.trem.media/news/local-news/have-a-go-heroes-awarded-200-wolverhampton-3166164" rel="noreferrer">One story</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Two have-a-go heroes have been rewarded with £200 each by a judge
after they chased and caught a pair of robbers.</p>
<p>Judge Michael Dudley said Christopher Turner and Dean Bate had earned
the reward for their “public spirited action.”</p>
<p>The two men caught Parminder Kuma, 18, and a 16-year-old youth who
cannot be named for legal reasons, after they threatened to stab two
schoolboys before escaping with a mobile telephone.</p>
<p>“They chased after the robbers, caught up with them and detained
them,” Mr Nicholas Burn prosecuting told Wolverhampton Crown Court.
“It was a very public spirited action because they acted promptly not
knowing what they would be confronted with.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/teenagers-praised-for-catching-rapist-1556384" rel="noreferrer">Another story</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the pair, Adam Barker and Jonathan Stoker <em>[teenagers]</em>, who were
awarded £200 each for their part in the capture, went off on their
bikes and chased Walsh <em>[a rapist]</em>, said Mr Duff <em>[the prosecuting lawyer]</em>.</p>
<p>They were joined by an allotment holder, Malcolm Bott and some
friends. The group caught up with Walsh and surrounded him and Mr
Bott, awarded £100, made a citizen's arrest until the police arrived</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is often called '<a href="https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/woman-given-400-judge-quick-15980685" rel="noreferrer">awarding [a sum] out of public funds</a>'</p>

<p><em>Boy, the &quot;yeah-but&quot; gang just hates this question. I added a bit at the end about how to see for yourself</em>.</p>
<p>The <strong>rule of law</strong> exists to replace any of these: { violence, extortion, corruption etc. } as ways to resolve conflicts.</p>
<p>In other words, the law is a system <strong>for resolving conflicts</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>If you don't have a conflict, then you don't need law</strong>.</p>
<p>As a general rule.  Of course there are many cases where the government or other parties help people, and there are laws connected with that.  But even then, the laws are about conflict - the laws on who can get a Medal of Honor are to keep a president from giving them bric-a-brac to undeserving people.  The laws concerning public charities are primarily about the tax deduction allowed for charitable donations and preventing people from abusing that.</p>
<p>And I'll grant there are innocent exceptions; if a government bans symbols of fascism, a law would be needed to exempt history museums, and everyone would agree there, sure.</p>
<p>Wherever there is a government giveaway or charitable program, and there are many -  there are people trying to commit fraud against that program.  That is where laws meet &quot;doing good&quot;, except the law only touches it where conflict exists or might exist.  (which is why you need to fill out forms and swear to stuff to get government assistance).</p>
<p>See also &quot;Good Samaritan&quot; laws which protect people who earnestly did the right thing by trying to save someone, only to be selfishly attacked by the person they saved. Another case where humans inject conflict into a good thing.</p>
<hr />
<hr />
<p><em>&quot;I don't understand how (this one law I'm thinking of here) can be about resolving conflict.  I don't see any conflict to this law.&quot;</em></p>
<p>Well, sometimes you need to put your thinking cap on and think about <em>all</em> the stakeholders and their likely views.  Take a sheet of paper, draw a line down the middle. Proponents to left, opponents to right.  <em>This is where most people choke spectacularly, because of either magical thinking which ignores <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality" rel="nofollow noreferrer">externalities</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive" rel="nofollow noreferrer">perverse incentives</a>, or political polarism that has trained them to 100% ignore their opponents, and thus are unable to relate to any view but their own</em>.</p>
<p>Free college and daycare to single moms. Pros: obvious, reduces poverty, stokes economy, helps women avoid abortion.  Cons: the fiscal hawks won't like the expense.  Encourages childbirth (bad for planet). Discourages marriage (bad for morals).</p>
<p>For <strong>any</strong> law that is passed, you can do that.  Really. Try it, earnestly, without manipulation.</p>
<p>Granted you'll have the rare exception: &quot;Previous law banned private collection of rainwater, but did not consider effects on flood control dam. Proposed law: Exempt flood control dam from other law.&quot;  Pros: many. Cons: None.</p>
<p>But they will be rare.  If you are finding many laws without &quot;cons&quot;, you're cheating lol.</p>

<p>Many incentives exist granting &quot;free money&quot; or awarding special protections for someone that takes special actions, which exist in a variety of contexts. For example, the U.S. congress wanted to incentivize marriage (as opposed to simply living together) so they created an income tax system that financially rewards couples that marry. In many states you can avoid liability for certain job-related incidents if you pay into an insurance fund or join a licensing authority (presuming they don't revoke your license). Often  a licensure scheme will include both carrot and stick.</p>

<H2>There are plenty.</H2>
<p>All forms of</p>
<ul>
<li>tax breaks (marriage, children, commuting)</li>
<li>subsidies (planting certain crops, buying electric cars)</li>
<li>bounties (catching criminals)</li>
</ul>
<p>are direct financial rewards for desireable behaviour. They are well-known and dispensed to a lot of people and organizations. Other rewards include awards and decorations (often shown by a physical medal), commonly with a distinctive split between</p>
<ul>
<li>civilian life (US Presidential Medal of Freedom)</li>
<li>military (US Medal of Honor)</li>
</ul>

<h3>The rights that you enjoy as a reward</h3>
<p>As an answer to <em>Do the laws always prohibit and punish?</em>.</p>
<ul>
<li>The right to property and laws against robbery allow people to enjoy their property without anyone being able to (unlawfully) take it.</li>
<li>The right of speech allows to say what you want without retribution (withing that right).</li>
<li>Laws against assault, battery, murder protect you from someone else injuring (or worse) you.</li>
</ul>
<p>So, you can take the stance that a law that sends murders to prison &quot;just prohibits&quot;. But most people would see as a way to guarantee the right to life of persons.</p>
<p>Of course, you could say that those are not rewards, as &quot;it is just natural&quot; for you to enjoy those rights. But, mind you, through human history many of those rights simply did not exist, so there is nothing &quot;natural&quot; about those rights.</p>

<p>There are plenty of laws that reward people for desired behavior, and here is <a href="https://money.com/government-pays-have-a-baby-low-birth-rate/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">an example</a>. The headline says it all:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Government Will Pay You to Have Babies in These Countries</p>
</blockquote>

<h1>Whistleblowing rewards</h1>
<p>Others have mentioned incentives, but as for actual rewards, there are such things, for example in the US there are various Federal whistleblower rewards/compensation programs. Whistleblowing to the IRS cases of underpaid taxes over $2M the whistleblower may be rewarded 15-30% of anything collected. The SEC likewise has paid enormous sums.</p>
<p>Plenty of law offices, organizations, and agencies are eager to explain the financial benefits of whistleblowing:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.whistleblowersinternational.com/what-is-whistleblowing/rewards/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.whistleblowersinternational.com/what-is-whistleblowing/rewards/</a></p>

<H2>Salaries, wages, and contract payments</H2>
<p>Salaries and wages are literally rewards for work. Contracts include payments as rewards for completing deliverables.</p>
<p>Anytime a government pays an individual or a company, that is the result of laws allowing and directing it to appropriate money from the public coffers and pay it out in exchange for desirable behavior.</p>
<p>Some examples include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Local ordinances authorizing city governments to set up and pay for police, fire, utilities, etc.</li>
<li>Federal budget bills that authorize spending by its agencies, for example NASA paying its internal salaries and contracting with external companies for  rocket launches.</li>
</ul>

<h2>Someone has to pay for the reward</h2>
<p>Any laws that materially reward people do not grant or route manna from heaven — no matter how high-flying the law makers or rewarders are. Someone always pays for it, be it the taxpayers in a democracy, or a monarch owning all the minerals in the land.</p>
<p>Thus, any such laws effectively say &quot;take money from those and give it to these&quot;. It will usually not make &quot;those&quot; happy. This is the reason the said laws are not ubiquitous or immediately obvious (which I guess has caused the question), although they do exist as noted in the other answers.</p>

legal-concepts theory-of-law