Barry Lam’s Less Rum’s Rum’s, Better People: A series of second discussions as to why discretion in the spirit of law should be extended to legalism in accordance with the letter of law. But he doesn’t just discuss how things are different now. He also provides a set of specific suggestions on how to implement this extension at its discretion.
His first suggestion is to make the use of discretion part of all bureaucratic structures, not implicit.
(1) Build discretion on all top-down missions, essentially enabling exceptions.
This is without exception there are no rules to build a bar about the best solution.
We need to allow shoplifting to be made if it is not a prison crime, or if certain drug owners don’t throw away their coffee, morality requires them to be made, and morality requires them to be made. Even if the rule maker cannot imagine an exception, it will arrive, so give the enforcer selective discretion.
From making selective discretion formal, Lamb moves to the second idea.
(2) Live at the discretion of interpretation.
Ram specifically says this is the obedience we still have to do, Ram claims that he allows us to be interpretively reserved
In my own life, I eat to embrace the virtue of vague domination.
I have also become a fan of vague house rules such as “Doing chores in the Timley way” and “Keeping the room in a reasonable order.” Certainly there are arguments and accusations that chore actors are taking advantage of loopholes or that enforcement is arbitrary and nippic. While people are not perfectly in line with timely and rational interpretations, rules develop individual knowledge of timeliness and association boundaries, while enforcing them to think about the boundaries of others. These types of rules need to be thought of others.
Lamb’s third idea brings back the laws of his second branch – the idea of stirring up a modest, modest pressure to explain this, Lamb makes the following suggestion:
(3) A system that incorporates mechanisms into rules and periodically restores discretion, and periodically recovers measurements as overchecks of legalism such as earning clause clauses.
The earned division clause allows for Sou to demonstrate the ability to successfully use discretion to gain more discretion, while maintaining the modest scope of those who do not demonstrate the same ability. One example given by Ram is an officer whose excessive force complaint has not consulted other offers. This is intended to work for the benefit of the citizens.
The discretion acquired gives people with wise judgments a way to empower them more to exercise those judgments as necessary. This is not about benefiting wise bureaucrats, but about benefiting us, those whom they serve.
This will be explicitly made with Lamb’s next idea:
(4) Give all enforcers a careful budget, granting them the ability to exercise selective, interpretive, or modest, modest, modest budgetary restrictions, allowing the show to show a reputation for justifiable judgments.
Lamb sees this as a compromise that preserves the total of the real benefits of legalism.
One of the advantages of this system is that lawyers can have it in their own way. The ordinary thing can continue to run through the role of the book without the power to defeat the entire bureaucrat. However, the ideal of Thue, Conf, showing excellent judgment, is not hampered by obligations, bad rules, or inadequately designed systems that do not allow people within the system to control the illustrative.
However, discretion also requires accountability. In the legal system, those who apply rules through books are not accountable when they cause harm by enforcing bad rules. However, in a discretionary world, if you are being asked, you have to learn to explain yourself and uble to do so.
(5) bureaucrats should have the right to know the moral decision-making framework of government organizations and citizens should have
This is not just to let the bureaucrats know that it is possible to extinct because of the chews they make. It is also about finding that citizens expect and demand better from civil servants than repeating the rules written down by civil servants.
Under legalism, we expect nothing from the bureaucracy. We should expect more at the restoration discretion.
Accountability is even more important, but Bacouse’s discretion comes with the risk of real shortcomings – the fact that discretion is permitted cannot itself “get out of the card that doesn’t escape from prison.”
Discretion means catastrophic and even catastrophic opportunities for desirability. Just because bad decisions are permitted at discretion does not mean that the person making those decisions cannot explain for them.
To this end, Lamb suggests that discretionary bureaucrats should be under continuous investigation.
(6) Just as the profession has a code of ethics, so there should be an ethics committee that evaluates discretionary decisions and informs bureaucrats of how there is a shortage of bureaucrats. It should be possible to remavel individuals due to Eggerian’s pattern of moral error, even if discretion legally allows them.
Finally, discretion is not like modifying the rulebook – it is a constantly evolving process. Officials should be trained to think carefully
Careful decision-making should use all the same tools as other practices when it is considered practice rather than needing evil.
Therefore, Lam’s final suggestion to integrate greater discretion into decision making:
(7) Latest best practices in areas where people are carefully empowered should be trained regularly to ensure that decisions are reported with the best empirical empirical evidence.
All of these proposals are intended to help move agencies beyond current performance levels. Ram doesn’t think that legalism is bound by catastrophe, but he sees it as mediocre at best and we should do better. And a way to do better is to collect the ability to distinguish between situations rather than dealing with different situations by the values, judgments, and obligations to fit into a mast of one size.
truth, [legalist bureaucracies] It is better than the astonishing fear of political philosophers. They are better than hunger, tyrants, civil war, and the complete lack of civil institutions. But it’s a low bar. You’ve been trapped in a vast bureaucracy. If one after another is sent to byhe-book officials to approve permits, medical procedures, or refunds, you can see how low Eveyone’s expectations are. You know how everyone in that system feels. Sorry, they’ll say, this is a system, these are rules, we all have to work within them.
No, we don’t. We don’t need to treat human institutions like civil society. We can deal with the cultivation of agents and their noble practices that are essential to the work of all people in all jobs, especially those in power.
This concludes my overview of Lamb’s discussion. In my next post, I will highlight the areas I most agree with Lamb, and I think his argument is Stronstost. I then provided diving criticism and pushbacks for the other points he made, and continued with the last one to appoint my overall view of his book.
