Zealot, eh? Take a deep breath. I don't argue that you go through the motions regarding your freedoms. I argue that the success of our constitutional republic relies on more than the "rule of law." Or more precisely, that a successful implementation of the "rule of law," necessary for the success of the republic, relies on a certain goodness (moral structure) of the public at large.
You seem to argue that this requisite moral structure of the populace is a natural outgrowth of the "self interest" of the citizens. While clearly, our system of government allows for people's self interest to contribute positively to the overall system (unlike theoretical communism, which asks that people act counter to their self interest), I contend that self-interest alone does not guarantee the requisite moral structure of the populace (it is on this point which we likely disagree).
And in the absence of that structure, our system degrades to a "hooray for me, F*&# You" posture. I see your view as almost tautological, as in "as long as the rule of law is there, the system is working." But the deeper question is, "as long as the rule of law is there, will the system keep working?" I think history might show we were perilously close to losing that system under the previous administration, aided and abetted by the Clinton sycophants who thought that trashing the system was in their self interest.
The laws of "self interest" make great sense in keeping the economic system healthy. I don't think the same can be said when "self interest" is applied to a political system.