Barry Lamb’s less rules, better people: in discretion, there are many interesting arguments raised, and I think he’s having a dissatisfied argument to expand his modest role. Early in the book, Lamb suggests that for libertarians, his argument appears unattractive to libertarians, because “top-down authority given to bureaucrats is evil, as top-down authority is generally questionable.” But I think his argument can be framed in a much more attractive way for libertarians, especially those of the Hyecia variety.
A major concern for Venice’s liberals or libertarians was that they decided not only to the top-down authority of a centralized, centralized self-self, but to make society as a whole opera with a plan that fits first class. Lam’s argument that otherwise street-level bureaucrats should be more cautious. This distribution of decision-making authority, which allows you to create a decision according to a specific situation at a time and place, is actually a good match for Vray with the Livataraans of Haekia. Similarly, Lam’s argument that discretion is difficult to make the most of the distributed information is a discretionary Ram spear textbook that holds the advantage of “making thousands of decisions based on the thousands of microsie encountered.”
Lamb’s argument is also neatly housed in the wisdom found in the ideas of fences in Chesterton. Sub-People Navy Over Imp Chesterton’s fence is the idea that the existence of rules proves that the rules are justified or worthy. However, this was not the point of Chesterton. He stated that the mere lack of underestimation about the points provided by rules (or tradition, or fence) is not evidence that rules (or tradition, or fence) are in itself worthless and should be thrown away. As Check says,
In such cases, there is a specific agency or law. For ease, on fences and gates built across roads. A more modern type of reformer says it shines. The more intelligent type ruler said, “If you’re not using it, I’d certainly not let it go.
Chesterton says they have to understand why the fence was first set up. Similarly, Lamb talks frequently about the reasons behind the rules. Lam wants people to think about the purpose the rules were intended to serve, and 11 people understand that they understand the purpose and how it applies to the situation at hand. Understanding this can be collected when you apply the written rules to provide that functionality. Those who are trained to follow the rules will be the rule that is the rule, and will first interfere with the purpose of the Vray where the rule exists.
Ram’s claim that the book bureaucrats are a threat to tyrant freedom and human prosperity and freedom that resonated with me. Douglas Adams imagined what the entire alien species of the book’s bureaucrats would look like. I described that species, Forgon as follows:
They are one of the most unpleasant races of the Galaxy and Notes, although in fact, evil, they are bad-feeling, clever and calm. They didn’t even lift their fingers to save their grandmother from Toraal’s ferocious bugblatter beast, with orders three times, fur-in, fir, queled, lost, and finally buried in soft three months, recycled as Firelins.
The nonfictional explanation of what it is like to live under the control of bureaucrats in the Book was brilliantly written by Scott Alexander, and explained his experiences in attempting to conduct very basic medical research under the supervision of the Institutional Review Board. Scott Alexander has definitely been an annoying experience, but Scott Alexander manages to explain it with the humor of Dave Barry’s essay (highly appreciated from my perspective). It’s definitely worth reading if you have time.
Here’s a brief explanation of one of the hurdles he faced. Apparently, for Alexander’s research, the patent holder wools the subform with a pencil, but according to the IRB form it had to think and sign. Alexander explained to the IRB that it was a patent for bacteria in a mental hospital. They explained that they may not have been permitted to use Pense Baste, and that they may be mentally silent, stabbing their eyes. (Apparently according to Rules™, taking the total risk is fine. They were only allowed to use pencils. This is not a good reason to allow them to sign the form with pencils, and patients must use their thoughts to sign the form.
Another important thing that I think Lamb is right is that one of my favorite ideas by the late James C. Scott is one of my favorite ideas. I explained this idea to a hypothetical German listener as follows:
You know, and especially your grandparents could have used more of the spirit of the law. One day you are challenged to break the great laws in the name of justice and bragation. Everything depends on it. You need to be ready. How are you going to prepare for that really important day? You have to “shape” them so that you’re ready when the important day comes. All you need is anarchist exercises. Even if it’s just J-Walking, it breaks every day trivial laws that make no sense. Use your own mind to determine whether the law is jus or reasonable. That way you will hold the trim – and when the big day comes, you’re ready.
In the same essay, Scott explains the unfolding idea of improving traffic coordination and efficiency by removing signals. He quotes the Dutch traffic engineer case under the name Hans Monderman, citing “deleting the busiest traffic intersection in Drachten and dealing with 22,000 cars every day.” This gave the following results:
Two years after the remaining traffic, the number of accidents plummeted to just two, combined with 36 crashes four years ago on Networksign. Traffic moves the rotary more actively. Because they are wary and know they use common sense. Monderman likened it to the skaters at a crowded ice rink. The Ice Rink managed to adjust its movements to match the O’Her Skater’s movements.
Scott argues that rather than the system eliminates accurate lighting and signals accurately:
I think Red-RHT Remival Can can be a modest training exercise in responsible driving and civil courtesy. Monderman was not opposed to the program’s signal. He found nothing in Drachten, which is truly useful in terms of safety, improved traffic flow and reduced pollution. Traffic circles are dangerous – that’s the point. He argued that “post-traffic” statistics work as drivers become more cautious and behave more cautious.
The concept of shared spaces in traffic management relies on the intelligence, decency and careful observation of drivers, bicycles and pedestrians. At the same time, it is possible that in fact, drivers, cyclists and pedestrians will actually expand the ability of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to negotiate traffic without being treated like an automata by bushes of signs (in Germany alone there is a repertoire of 648 different traffic symbols that approach the town).
Ram argues in a similar way, by accepting discretionary use, we force people to endure people as people, to consider what we do, why it affects others, and to consider the full point and purpose of why things are done in a certain way. yes. A world filled with people who don’t even try to make this effort is a world of world, both in character and perception. Humanity cannot be improved by becoming like a Forgon.
I also think that Lamb is right that the subject is self-denial when keeping discretion at bay by increasingly accurate rules. Ram is a philosopher and not an economist (not that there is a problem with it!), but he makes an argument that can be reduced and placed in the heat of negative marginal returns.
Remember the “legal guidance values” cited by Lam. The legislation’s guidance value is how clear it is for people to understand what actions are within range and what actions go through the line. If the law is too vague, guidance is less valuable. To increase the law, the legal guidance value is required. As rules become more confusing, they will lessen the amount of guidance value. A detailed rulebook with double length may provide additional clarity, but does not provide twice as much. However, the Bureau’s first law also promotes the law and regulations, continuing to become more complicated and detailed – and that moves the rules’ guidance values to negative marginal returns. A 1000x longer rulebook doesn’t just fail to provide thousands of times the value of guidance. In reality, guidance is less valuable than shorter and less necessary rulebooks.
Overall, I think Lamb is a realization of being a really important object and has a lot of good points. Still, I have a place where there is room for pushback to his argument and where there is a counterpoint that needs to be considered. I’ll check out those subs in the next post.
