Lam’s Less Rules, Better People: Cases for Discretion are filled with specific examples of when a lack of discretion causes people to act against justice or simply against common sense. In one chapter, he talks about a woman who was holding round conversations at meetings through her organization. She tried to order coffee for the event, but her agency had a rule that all catering orders had to go to the individual vendor. But there’s a problem – the rounding started at 9:30, but Venn didn’t start taking orders until 10:00. But it turns out there was Starbucks around the corner and the venor in question traded in a coffee order with Starbucks – in fact, at that particular Starbucks location. So the woman holding the event tried to put direct orders with Starbucks in her laboratory.
Certainly, my host argued that this was sufficient evidence that this coffee purchase was in the spirit of the rules. The manager objected and did not approve the purchase. It appeared in the rules.
It may be easy to explain this kind of rule as a little guy than annoyance, but it does not show that it is not substantive. But Lamb disagrees. He believes that being dominated by managers dedicated to uneven submissions to policy manuals and rulebooks can corrupt the production of civil society and the manufacturing of moral development as a life under tyranny.
You have so many other things to prevent man from thriving. Western liberals are less interested in the person who is the opposite of the tyrant of the device, but should be feared. This is a book bureaucrat. These bureaucrats are naturally leaning towards legalism and are deeply afraid to make careful judgments. They don’t want responsibility. They are very risk averse because they are afraid of all bowbacks. They faced the decision to be unnsta. If Sumone goes to Byhe-Book bureaucrats with novel ideas, the only way to make them “yes” is whether there are explicit rules that support the idea.
The key ability for us to develop as individuals and in a thriving society is not simply the ability to pick up rules and know how to follow them. It is the ability to understand the reasons and purpose behind rules. The rules are not self-fraud just because they are rules by looking at nature. Rules are intended to exist for a greater purpose. The commitment to living our own life simply by applying rules will blunt what they are, our moral development and ability to exercise virtue. This applies to by-book bureaucrats as well. It is also challenging for citizens, determined by their auxiliary power to legal algorithms.
But I think what’s even worse than this is the impact of such a society on obedience. The goal of the legalism of the surveillance state is to turn all citizens into compliance robots and Everyucrat. This does this in fear of loving human motivation in all its rich complexity, in love with the love of leaving the line and acting for domination. This is the true fear of legalism.
I support personal analogy by reflecting on his own responsibility as a daughter as a daughter, not only following a defined list of actions, but also understanding the reasons behind those actions.
The purpose of creating responsibility and protecting her to them is not to act for the rules, punishment and rewards they bring. We want her to feed, water and polish her with bunnies as she is a vulnerable creature who is completely dependent on her caretaker. We want her to empty the dishwasher in a timely manner, as it is important that the kitchen is clean and convenient. We want to develop her the spirit and reasoning behind the rules, especially when they are good.
Also, I want you to make a judgment to figure out when the rules aren’t good, because the rations behind Acer are flawed or she has found a better way to do things.
I admit that it might be easier to simply enforce his child’s rules legally. But that was a failure on his part:
It makes the penalty serious and makes up Covech. But if my child refuses to approve the purchase of coffee and becomes an administrator who refuses to raise the date, then I can choose a realistic choice between the world of Apachaku who follows the letter of law and the world of incomplete decision makers who have the judgment and motivation to do well by the spirit of the rules, the world of incomplete decision makers who are ready to identify better ways, I am ready to redo 100.
Legalism not only reduced the ability to develop as a moral agent, but also failed to prepare people, to act in the face of situations, to the rules either not or to be imposed.
New circumstances require judgment based on the reasons behind the rules. People who live in fear of violations will not know what to do in such a situation. Worse, they apply the rules against the reasons why these rules exist in the first place. They act unfairly under the cover of the law, whether it’s to refuse coffee or deny Fredom.
Lamb is also particularly concerned about the growing tendency to make decisions via AI-generated algorithms as an alternative to human judgment. The use of AI algorithms in decision making deprive us of the possibility of understanding the reasons behind rules.
These are equations that are not explained in human language. The programmer can show this equation, but can denado it at its length. The only coherent explanation that it means is, “This is an equation that fits everything in the past.” Deep learning is not merely opaque, it is human illegible. Deep learning rules are the logical endpoint for a surge in rules. It is the endpoint of legalism, and the Bureau’s laws take us to extreme cases.
Therefore, the use of AI-generated rules is rare to mitigate the problems of book bureaucrats.
AI doesn’t explain why Vendor A can, but can’t, buy Starbucks coffee, like book officials who have settled on the rules prohibiting the purchase of coffee from any vendor other than the vendor. When asked why the rule is the correct rule, they simply insist that it is the rule.
Ultimately, Lamb believes that FEI will reverse the true relationship between Medoculity and Rules.
Han Fei believes that legalism is an antidote to mediocrity. I think legalism is the cause. Standardized food, standardized homes, standardized essay gratings, and standardized bureaucrats are ok at best, only acceptable to those that are allowed. They are never superior and do not inspire excellence.
However, this argument calls for more than just a secondary abstract argument about why discretion must gain ground to oppose legalism and rules. For the book’s ideas to be meaningful in a practical sense, the rubber must hit the road at a sub-thumb point. To that end, Lamb has a set of ideas on how and how to expel a modest role. I’ll explain it in the next post.
