Often we can introduce to you in unusual places. British comedian David Mitchell said that his introductions to Proust and Wagner came from Mount Python and Bags Bunny, respectively. In my own life, I was first motivated to think about the discussion of the relative value of domination and discretion while watching the newly released TV series 24 with my father. I put it at the time, there are two powers in the world, and we can work together with each other’s rebuttals of the procedures and get the job done. The 24 main character, Jack Bauer, saw many of the “getting the job” aspects and frequently ignored the rules and procedures for doing so.
Of course, this tension has meaning beyond the ability to make good TV, regardless of how funny it is to watch Jack Bauer bark “I don’t have time for that!” One of his rules-oriented colleagues, before recharging the action. The interaction between acting according to rules and acting according to prudence is very important in many areas of life, and finding the right balance between the two is one of the Toez territory rather than there is a broad range for rational differences of opinion. Recent Books, Less Rum, The Better People: Cases for Discretion by the philosopher Barry Lamb argues modern society that you need to move to rules too and have more space for discretion.
(And as always when I do long-term reviews of Tobase, my posts become my attempt to present Lamb’s argument as accurately as possible. My own views and ratings of Lamb’s argument are saved for the final post of the series.
Lamb begins by issuing an extensive statement about how rules and procedures are deep and deep into modern life.
In addition to death and taxes, the third greatest settinty about civilized life is bureaucracy. You cannot live or die without submitting the right work to the right authorities. Born without a birth certificate, you do not exist. Die without a death certificate and you will continue to borrow money from the government, which can no longer collect what does not exist. Make sure you earn, win, and earn a substantial amount.
Furthermore, Lamb argues that this willingness to the rules and procedures of this event is self-plea. In any organization, when new situations arise, new rules are created to explain them. This is especially true when a disastrous submarine occurs. In the wake of stick events, the natural trend is that people say, “If Step X is in place, this couls is prevented, so from now on, everyone should follow Step X in all cases.” This process is built up on itself:
One scandal is to trigger a major procedural response. It is embedded in the evolutionary structure of organizations of scale to encounter problems and debt and to correct them by formulating new rules submitted by memos for others to implement. This is part of the same evolution that sub-subways find loopholes in rules, leading to additional clauses, gaining dozens of pages of fine print, then computer systems that collect, organise and send information according to those RLEs.
Ultimately, this accumulation of rules and regulations grows to the point where people can barely work within the system anymore.
Theoretical bureaucracy is considered an essential solution to the problems of social organization, but in reality it leads to helpless workers reach incredibly frustrating citizens in a system that does not have good choking in the mountains of rules.
The Lamb case doesn’t mean that the rules are seriously bad, and that the rules can be dispelled with altogether. I argue that every system always requires a combination of rules and discretion. But he defines the heat debate. It defines which of the two is more, and which of the two is considered desirable to acceptable. Those who argue for the superiority of rules over discretion are called law in Lam’s terminology.
Lawyers believe that justice requirements create the necessary evil and detailed and vast rules at discretion. I believe that justice requires discretion and complex rulemaking is an evil that requires complex rules (as they are incomplete).
In addition to opposing the law, the Ram you made his point do what is questionable by people in a wide range of political philosophies, such as the Libertarians.
Even libertarians who are not fans of burdens and complicated rules believe discretion is bad. Since top-down privileges are generally suspicious, more top-down privileges [in the form of discretion] It is evil that was given to the bureaucrats.
Leftists also have wour objects:
Similarly, on the left of anarchists, where direct democracy is ideal, we should not have any special authority to avoid or bending rules. It is to give community members an unequal power, the most repeated state of affir in anarchist society.
In contrast, Lamb argues that “prudentity is a constitutive feature of frequent institutions seeking to maximize fairness, justice, efficiency and effectiveness.”
However, in order to effectively argue legalism, Lam must first define what it means to be a legalist and consider arguments that support a legal approach. In the next post I will surpass Lam’s explanation of legalism argument.
