Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion
Ratings1
Average rating4
A philosopher argues that the proliferation of rules and mandates is making us dumber, less moral, more deceptive, and less able to govern important institutions.
Wherever there’s a rule, there is someone with the power to apply or ignore it—or add to it, in the interest of justice. From enforcing chores to issuing life sentences, decision-makers deliver flawed and sometimes arbitrary outcomes. But is their use of discretion good or bad overall? As a society, should we seek to minimize or maximize discretion, with all its potential for bias and other kinds of human error?
Reframing our understanding of justice and ethics, philosopher Barry Lam argues that while use of discretion—whether by a sports referee, a parent, a police officer, or a judge—can never be perfect, removing it has even more problematic effects. Mandatory arrests and sentencing laws have not eliminated bias, but have corrupted the courtroom, institutionalized lying, and brought about even more unjust and arbitrary results. Fewer Rules, Better People is a bold, riveting treatise that sheds new light on political debates about law and justice while aiming to prepare us for the imminent threat of more “perfect,” discretion-less rule-enforcement by AI.
Reviews
Popular Reviews
Reviews with the most likes.
The Practical Case For A More 'Libertarian' Ethic In All Walks Of Life. First off, let's acknowledge that the Libertarian Party in the US is a joke of its former self that has squandered in these last few years all the hard-won gains it had achieved in its first 40 years - including the first so-called "third" Party candidate with over a million votes in any US election *ever* (John Monds, Governor of Georgia, 2010, followed by the LP's Presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, in 2012 and again in 2016).
But seriously, forget about the LP and every instance you've ever heard of "libertarianism" in the media, particularly over the last 15 yrs or so.
What Lam does here, instead, is build a far more practical case for largely the same ideals. No, he never specifies "remove this government agency" or "that mandate is unconstitutional" or some such, his arguments are far more practical and every day - why must a mandate exist to buy coffee from a coffeeshop that doesn't even open (at least on certain days) until 10am exist? Why shouldn't I be able to buy coffee for my 8a meeting from a different vendor who is open at that time? As but one example Lam actively cites.
Time after time after time, case after case after case, Lam builds his argument chiefly around the insanity of the proliferation of laws, mandates, and rules across the US in particular. Even mandates with lofty ideals often wind up *harming* those ideals in their specificity and implementation, according to Lam, in a common theme throughout this text.
While entirely a philosophical, if practical philosophy, text, the writing style is far from a Mill or a Thoreau - this is far more approachable and conversational, easy for basically anyone with the reading skills to actually read the text to follow through logically and understand Lam's points.
No, the singular flaw I found here was dearth of its bibliography, clocking in at a paltry 9% in the Advance Review Copy of the book I read just a couple of months before publication. Had this had double (or even triple, if I'm being hopeful here :D) the documentation it does, it would be a truly flawlessly executed book that strongly and persuasively makes its case quite well indeed.
Overall a compelling book written in an easily approachable style, this is one of those books that anyone committed to "Liberty in our lifetime" (as the LP once proclaimed) should read, take to heart, and begin beating the drums for. It makes the case for its points truly better than most libertarians of any era have, including the oft-cited (in LP circles) Harry Browne.
Very much recommended.
Originally posted at bookanon.com.