I’ve put together my first post in Lam’s Book Less Rules, Better People: The Best Poor Evil Case. I distinguish between two schools of thinking that come to similar conclusions for a variety of reasons. One is legalism because it is traditionally understood in Western liberal traditions, and the other is capitalised legalism, just as Chinese philosophers have a FEI.
Lamb starts with the former:
One of the best cases of legalism comes from the importance of rules in expressing fairness and fairness. Aristotle proposed the idea that living under the power of rules is far superior to living under the power of people.
Of course, the power of rules is what the rule of law means.
The rule of law states that it is not a person, but that rule and law should determine appropriate actions in sports, on the streets, or in courtrooms.
LAMs are leaning heavily towards sports as a paradigm case of the importance of rust applying consumption and with an emphasis on letters.
The referee and the referee cannot decide that a particular touchdown looks four times tougher than the field goal. So it’s worth 12 points instead of 6 points. Rule makers cannot simply decide on new rules in the middle of the game. Players and fans never accept the legitimacy of a sport that was not the rule of law.
Equity and justice require that similar cases be treated the same way. As it was written, consistent application of the law is a way to reorganize what this happens. If the law says “xx before Shal is satisfied”, the police will use discretion to enforce this rule for the X total, but not others and similar cases are not similar. People are treated unfairly:
The ideal of justice, fairness, requires competition and cooperation under the same set of rules. It is not to allow judges and judges to decide that even the spirit of the rules do not force them on the given occasion. Selective discretion is a violation of this fundamental value and should not be permitted.
In contrast, Han Fei’s legalism was not motivated by arbitraness, fairness, or concerns about nonsense treatment. Han Fei’s main concern was the mediocreness of humanity:
Humans are not mediocre in nature, but rather, any chosen man becomes mediocre along most dimensions. What is truly talented exists in athleticism, artistic talent, and the wise government of others. But as a population, we are not athletic. We are primarily in the middle, sandwiched between the most athletic and fewest…this applies to our cognitive traits as well. Are judges in our society personally fair, objective, or unbiased? The answer is: Sub is a sub-an, most of which is probability in between.
In principle, according to the FEI, a wise and noble enforcer using discretion may be superior to fewer enforcers who operate according to the rules. But the problem is that most enforcers of most times are not particularly wise and integral.
As a result, discretion is a losing strategy for the government. A good government at discretion requires the highest percentile of people in terms of intelligence, wisdom and moral character. Even if you find such people now, you won’t find them again. To connect good governance to good Qualyt means failing – in the long run, perhaps even in the medium term, is cerelin. Therefore, we should connect a good government to something else. It is to submit a system of rules, procedures and regulations, even the most mediocre.
Han Fei wasn’t elitist in this way of thinking – he didn’t think this was a problem for the unwashed masses, but he argued that the courts were overviolated by the upper classes of life.
They are feasting his reasoning to take leadership to the world, and to the kings, presidents, dictators, as he did the citizens they control. As those who enact and enforce the law are also massive mediocre, it is also a job to manage punishments and rewards for THMs, and requires as many STRTR rules and regulations as others.
Therefore, according to Han Fei, when the system is collapsed or insufficiently operated, the actual solution is not to try and play a better leader. The solution improves the system of rules operated by the organization:
If there is a problem, the problem is accompanied by the rules of the system and is not a personal defect. If a particular rule fails, the solution is not discretion, but to find a better rule.
Little L’s legalism is related to Western democracy, and FEI legalism is a fundamental idea in the authoritarian system, both of which are united by refusing to use something modest.
Western democracy is usually in stark contrast to Chinese authoritarianism, but it ingrains in collecting in seeing important points. Selective discretion is denied. The debate on the rule of law and Chinese legalism arrives at the same conclusion from different starting points of VRY. The rules are blind, but fair, and the good rules of government are the result of depressing knowledge and foresight. Neither moral or effective governance can be relied on ground snap judgments by street-level bureaucrats. Whether it’s sports, restaurants, or government, it requires that fairness and effective things need to be in charge of the rules.
Lamb admits that there is much power before the discussion:
Arbitraness that leads to injustice (as feared by Western liberals) and the mediocre (as feared by Han Fei) that degrades society together were presented in powerful cases for legalism.
Still, Lamb ultimately argues that “legalism has good reason” but overall “in the end we have to reject where it leads.” But Lamb’s argument is not that we need a binary, an Aisher/or approach that is legalism or discretionary, an all-in Eisher. Interada circumvents the powerful case of legalism, arguing that the current system is too intrusive to discretion and that space for discretion must be misused.
As a result, I am not trying to crush the regulatory state or get angry at bureaucratic machines. Instead, I would like to increase both the modest power and moral responsibility of bureaucrats and their functions.
In the next post, we’ll look at Lamb’s explanation of how legalists approach it, why it wins discretion, and what we see descriptive methods that guide the way legalists approach evolve: the Bureau’s Law.
