Barry Lam’s Fewer rules, better people: the case for discretion Increases a number of interesting arguments and I think he is making a compelling argument to expand the role of discretion. Early in the book, LAM suggests that his argument seems unattractive to Libertarians, based on the fact that for the Libertarian: “Top-down authority in general is suspected, so more top-down authority given to bureaucrats is an evil.” But I think his argument can be framed in a way that would be much more attractive for Libertarians, in particular those of the Hayekian variety.
What a great concern for a Hayekian liberal or libertarian is not only in itself not only top-down authority is centralized, concentrated authority that tries to have an entire society operate by a one-size-fits-all plan. Lam’s argument that bureaucrats at the street level should have more discretion to decide whether a certain rule applies to certain circumstances, would make authority fewer Top-down and centralized-de locus of decision-making is much more distributed than usual. This distribution of decision -making authority, in a way that makes it possible to make decisions according to certain circumstances of time and place, is actually very sympathetic for a Hayekian libertarian. In the same way, LAM’s argument that discretion is needed to make the best use of dispersed information a textbook Hayekian’s insight-when Lamb speaks about discretion that has the advantage of “thousands of people taking thousands of decisions based on the thousands of micro-sessions they encounter” The use of knowledge in society.
Lam’s argument also neatly houses the wisdom that is found in the idea of Chesterton’s Hek. Some people who naive the fence of Chesterton too much too much as the idea that the existence of a rule is positive that a rule is justified or valuable. But this was not the point of Chesterton. He said that a purely lack of understanding with regard to the point served by a rule (or tradition, or fence) itself is no evidence that the rule (or tradition, or fence) is and must be thrown away. As Chesterton said,
There is a certain institution or law in such a case; Let’s say, because of the simplicity, a fence or gate set up on a road. The more modern reformer is cheerful and says, “I don’t see this using it; let’s take it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see it, I will certainly not leave you away.
Chesterton says that we must first understand the reason that the fence was set up, and only then makes it logical to talk about the downs. In the same way, Lam often talks about the reason behind the rules. Lam wants people to think about the goal that the rule was intended to serve, and as soon as they understand that goal, to think about how it applies best to the situation that occurs. Insight into this enables us to recognize when applying the rule as written that function does not serve, or actively works against it. Those who are only trained to follow a rule because it is a rule can often sabotage for which the rule exists in the first place – and never realize that they do that.
The argument of LAM that the bureaucrate of the book is the threat to freedom and human flowering and freedom as a tyrant resonated with me. Douglas Adams introduced themselves What a whole aliens of bureaucrats would be with the book. He described that species, the Vogons, in the following way:
They are one of the most unpleasant varieties in the Melkweg-not actually bad, but badly mumbled, officially and callig. They would not even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the glory bugblatter -beast of racing without orders signed, submitted, sent back, requested, lost, found to public investigation, requested, again lost and eventually buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as a fire brigade.
A non-fiction description of what it is like to live under the rule of the bureaucrate of the book was written brilliant by Scott Alexander, descriptive His experience that tries to conduct a very basic medical study under the supervision of an institutional assessment council. Although it was undoubtedly a terribly frustrating experience to continue, Scott Alexander manages to describe it with the humor of a Dave Barry -essay (lots of praise, from my perspective). It is worth reading if you have the time.
I will just briefly describe one of the obstacles with which he was confronted. Apparently, patients would sign their forms with pencil before the examination of Alexander, but according to the IRB forms had to be signed with pens. Alexander explained the IRB that this was because patients in a psychiatric hospital were not allowed to use pens, because they might do something mentally stabbing like themselves. (Apparently according to the Rules ™, it is fine to risk someone who caught himself with a pencil but not a pen.) And the IRB reaction was that although patients were indeed not allowed to use pens, and they should not use pens and should only be a good reason to sign them with pencils and the patients use the forms. Don’t blame us, we just follow the rules ™!
Another important point that I think LAM is right is how legalism (and legalism) can lead to the moral and mental bewilderment of both enforcers and the obedient. One of my favorite ideas from the late James C. Scott is what he called anarchist -The targeted cultivation of a rule -breaking spirit in cases where following the rules makes no sense. He describes this idea in the following way to a hypothetical German listener:
You know, you and especially your grandparents could have used a spirit of Lawbreaking more. One day you will be called upon to violate a large law in the name of justice and rationality. Everything depends on it. You have to be ready. How are you going to prepare for that day if it really matters? You have to stay ‘in shape’, so that when the big day comes, you are ready. What you need is anarchist lost. Every day or so breaks a trivial law that makes no sense, even if it is only Jaywalking. Use your own head to assess whether a law is fair or reasonable. That way you keep trimming – and when the big day comes, you’re done.
In the same essay, Scott describes a unfolding idea for improving traffic coordination and efficiency by removing traffic lights. He quotes the business of a traffic engineer in the Netherlands named Hans Monderman, who “the busiest intersection of the traffic light in thought and used 22,000 cars a day.” This led to the following result:
In the two years after the removal of the traffic light, the number of accidents fell to just two, compared to thirty -six crashes in the four years prior to the redesign. Traffic moves more firmly through the rotating, because all drivers know that they should be alert and use their common sense, while back -ups and the anger on the road that is connected to them are almost disappeared. Monderman compared it with Skaters on a busy ice rink, which successfully manage their movements to that of the other skaters.
Scott argues that this system worked better, precisely because it needed drivers to pay attention to their circumstances and to deal with what they did to others, in a way that drivers simply never concern when they allow their movements to be dictated by lights and signals:
Red light removal can, I believe, be seen as a modest training exercise in responsible driving and social courtesy. Munderman was in principle not against traffic lights; He just didn’t find anything in Drachten that were really useful in terms of safety, improving traffic flow and reducing pollution. The traffic circle seems dangerous – and that is the point. He argued that when drivers are wary, they behave more carefully, and the statistics about “post -traffic” -accidents bear him …
The concept of the shared space of traffic management is based on the intelligence, common sense and attentive observation of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. At the same time, it can in its small way the capacity of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to negotiate traffic without being treated as vending machines by bushes of signs (only Germany has a repertoire of 648 different traffic symbols, which collects when approaching as a city) and signals.
Lam argues that embracing the use of discretion, in a similar way, forces us to relate to people like people, to think about what we do and why and how it influences others, and to consider the full point and goal why things should be done in a certain way. Yes, sometimes the attempt will fail, perhaps not even badly – but it is important that such attempts are still being made. A world full of people who never even try to make this effort is a worse world, both in character and in consequences. Humanity would not be improved by becoming more on Vogons.
I also think LAM is right that something self -destroying is trying to keep discretion at bay by making rules increasingly accurate. Lam is a philosopher, not an economist (not that something is wrong with that!), But he makes an argument that can be put in terms of decreasing and negative marginal returns.
Consider the “guidance value of the law” that lamb quotes. The guidance value of a law is how clearly helps people understand what kind of behavior within boundaries is and what kind of behavior the line exceeds. If a law is too vague, it has a poor guide value. Making the law more accurate increases the guide value of the law – but only to a certain extent. As rules become more detailed, you get less value for money in guidance value. A Rulbook that is twice as long and detailed can offer extra clarity, but it will not offer twice as much clarity. But the first law of desk dynamics also encourages laws and rules to remain more complex and more detailed – and that moves the guidance value of the rules to negative marginal returns. A Rulbook that is a thousand times longer worse Guidelines than a shorter, less precise Rulebook, because it becomes too long and cumbersome to understand.
So in general I think LAM is really something important and makes some good points. Yet I find places where his arguments have room for pushback, as well as places where there are counter points that must be considered. I will view some of them in my next message.