Caesar was trying to differentiate between breaking the law for a good reason and a bad reason. In other words, if you seize power you do it for a variety of reasons, mostly in those days to expand an empire or revolt against an unjust regime. If those in power are 'good ' then you do not need to seize power, and the enforced rules are there to protect you. So, in short, only break the rules to change them. Although some may argue that law is imperfect and there are instances in which the law is incomplete or otherwise non-ideal and therefore must be broken in some fashion at some point. I strongly disagree. By violating the law, you jeopardize the very power you seek to obtain. If the law is not good enough for those in power to follow,