The question of the limits of the law is connected to the I-other relation. How we conceive the latter shapes how we conceive the law and its limits. According to Hobbes and his homo homini lupus principle the law has no limits. It is driven by fear of the other and calls for absolute power to guarantee each one’s security in face of the other. Nothing can obstacle the law. Hence it presents no call for perfectibility. Only when the law is recognized to be perfectible in qualitative terms and not merely the quantitative are limits recognized. Perfectibility concerns justice and not the force of the law. That the law arises from the condition of homo homini lupus and acts as a guarantee with respect to fear of the other is here questioned. The homo homini lupus principle is a consequence of the law. From this perspective the limits of the law concern limits on my responsibility for the other, limits on fear for the other, on unindifference towards the other, involvement with the other. Therefore, fear of the other is consequent. The more the law guarantees against responsibility for the other, drawing boundaries between what I owe and do not owe the other, the more it circumscribes the sphere of my responsibility for the other. Beyond these boundaries not only am I not responsible, but I turn to the law so that it guarantees my security. The greater is our fear of the other, the greater are our phobias towards the stranger.