No Result
View All Result
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLES
  • Login
Monday, October 6, 2025
TheAdviserMagazine.com
  • Home
  • Financial Planning
    • Financial Planning
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Research
    • Business
    • Investing
    • Money
    • Economy
    • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Trading
  • 401k Plans
  • College
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Estate Plans
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Legal
  • Home
  • Financial Planning
    • Financial Planning
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Research
    • Business
    • Investing
    • Money
    • Economy
    • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Trading
  • 401k Plans
  • College
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Estate Plans
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Legal
No Result
View All Result
TheAdviserMagazine.com
No Result
View All Result
Home Market Research Economy

Fewer Rules, Better People: Where Lam Falls Short

by TheAdviserMagazine
4 months ago
in Economy
Reading Time: 8 mins read
A A
Fewer Rules, Better People: Where Lam Falls Short
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LInkedIn


I had many good things to say about Barry Lam’s book Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion. However, no book is flawless, and no argument leaves no room for pushback. There are several places where I think the analysis in the book falls short, or at least misses out on important insights.

While Lam’s argument for why discretion best allows people to use dispersed knowledge in a way that accounts for particular conditions of time and place is, as I said, a textbook insight from F. A. Hayek, there is another Hayekian idea that could have greatly strengthen Lam’s analysis. Hayek spoke of things like rules, order, law, and legislation, but for Hayek, these terms were not synonyms. In particular, Hayek made a deep distinction between law and legislation. Reviewing the first volume of Hayek’s Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Pierre Lemieux describes the distinction in the following way,

Law is made of those rules of conduct that need to be enforced for the maintenance of society. Historically, law is older than legislation. It was considered as given, something that a “legislator” might discover but not change.

In Hayek’s evaluation, law is organic, an order that grows and evolves, and is not the direct or deliberate product of any given mind. Law establishes and preserves the overall social order, but it does not aim to produce specific ends within that order. By contrast, legislation is a rationally directed attempt to write specific rules in order to bring about some known and desired end result. When Lam speaks about laws, he’s almost always referring to what Hayek would call legislation.

This might seem like little more than a terminological quibble, or a digression into disputing definitions. But the distinction matters. For example, early in the book Lam writes,

Big businesses, small businesses that compete with big businesses, community groups, youth sports, and anything involving the management of lots of people will require rules and their enforcement, rather than informal exchanges between people built on trust, friendship, acquaintanceship, and verbal agreements.

I think it’s wrong to say that all these forms of social organization requires written rules rather than the informal and spontaneous norms of ordinary human interaction. The way Lam has written it, it sounds as if he’s saying the presence of written rules substitutes for these informal and spontaneous norms. I think this is wrong. Written rules are not a substitute for evolved social norms – though they can obviously help compliment, secure, and reinforce those norms. Indeed, I’d take it a bit further – the success and reliability of those written rules depends critically on the strength and prior existence of the base-layer norms that govern ordinary social interaction. This is why low-trust societies tend to have such terrible results. No amount of rule-writing can bootstrap away the problems that develop when a society lacks this fundamental layer of social order.

The absence of a distinction between law and legislation leads to another possible source of trouble for Lam’s argument. Lam argues that bureaucrats, enforcers, and ordinary citizens in their day-to-day lives ought to seek to understand the reasons behind the rules, the proverbial spirit of the law, and enforce (or ignore) those rules in a way that will best embody those reasons. But the rules of an evolved, spontaneous order – laws, rather than legislation – aren’t developed according to constructivist rationality and by the kind of articulatable reasons Lam envisions. Hayek and many others have forcefully argued that there is a strong case to be made for following rules that you don’t understand and whose purpose can’t be rationally articulated.

Many of the rules of the social order fall into this category. Hayek did argue that we can still gain some understanding of the purpose of these kinds of rules, but only in a limited capacity. Still, he put things rather starkly in The Fatal Conceit when he wrote “If we stopped doing everything for which we do not know the reason, or for which we cannot provide a justification in the sense demanded, we would probably very soon be dead.”

A counterpoint that can be made in Lam’s favor is that his book is explicitly examining the rules of bureaucracy – the written, constructivist, ground-level rules of both state and private organizations that attempt to bring about some known, desired end. That is, Lam’s book is a mediation on how to think about legislation, rather than law in the Hayekian sense. Thus, one can take Lam’s book as making a case about how we should interact within the legislative layer of social order, but not as greenlighting a free-for-all to disregard law in the larger Hayekian sense. But that counterpoint isn’t found in the book – and anyone who reads the book but lacks an understanding of the important difference between law and legislation might not take that lesson to heart either.

This issue will be particularly important if Lam wants to persuade people whose thought (like my own) takes a strong cue from the thinking of people like Edmund Burke. Recall some of Lam’s closing words I quoted in my final post outlining his argument, about the need to rise above the limitations of legalism:

True, [legalist bureaucracies] are better than the worst fears of political philosophers. They are better than famines, tyrants, civil wars, and the complete lack of civil institutions. But that is a very low bar. If you have ever been trapped inside a sprawling bureaucracy, sent to one by-the-book bureaucrat after another to get a permit, medical procedure, or reimbursement approved, you will know how low everyone’s expectations are. You will know how helpless everyone inside of that system feels. We’re sorry, they will say, but this is the system, these are the rules, we all have to work within them.

No, we do not. We do not have to treat human agency like a venom to civil society, sucking and draining every last bit of it from the institutions that matter most. We can instead treat agency and the cultivation of its virtuous practice as essential to all people in all jobs, especially the jobs of people in power.

This is certainly a stirring thought, and I do not deny that it has its appeal. However, there is also a strong intellectual tradition associated with people like Edmund Burke and John Selden that cautions against such stirring sentiments. This line of argument says, in effect, that when you have inherited a system that has been stable, enduring, and works tolerably well, you should be extremely cautious – pessimistic, even – in the face of stirring calls to disrupt the workings of that system in pursuit of grand and high aims.

Social order is something that is far easier to break down than build up, and something concrete that works tolerably well in practice ought to be carefully guarded over abstractions of what would be excellent in theory. Attempts to transform the former into the latter have a track record of creating gulags more often than greatness. As Burke put it,

A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman. Everything else is vulgar in the conception, perilous in the execution.

Does Lam’s case fail this test? This, too, is something that could be cleared up by a greater attention to the distinction between law and legislation. I’m inclined to interpret Lam’s argument in a way that accounts for both a disposition to preserve and improve, because his focus is on the rationally constructed rules of bureaucracy rather than the organic laws of the larger social order. Still, his case would have greatly benefitted from making this point directly.

Some parts of Lam’s description of discretion in law enforcement don’t quite click for me. He describes how in particular, progressives began to seek out district attorney or prosecutorial positions in order to try to wield selective and interpretive discretion in a way more aligned with justice. Many were met with resistance from their own police forces, who were upset at their perception that the DA was no longer enforcing the law. But among the names Lam cites is former San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin. Lam doesn’t describe the specifics of Boudin’s term in detail, which can only slightly uncharitably be described as “let’s just make crime legal in San Francisco.” Lam only mentions in passing that “Chesa Boudin of San Francisco, elected in 2019, was recalled in a 2022 vote.” Someone skeptical of Lam’s thesis could latch on to this glossing over of how badly things went under Boudin, and accuse Lam of paying insufficient attention to the real risks and downsides of discretion.

Still, there are two ways Lam could respond. One is by pointing out that as part of his case, he argues discretion must come with accountability, and those who use discretion poorly may be removed from their position even if they were technically within the bounds of their discretion. Boudin’s recall was simply a case of this idea being put into practice. But a more interesting response is to argue that it would be wrong to cite Boudin as a case of discretion displacing legalism – Boudin was actually a case of the removal of discretion and the implementing of legalism, albeit a legalism consisting of his own very different rules. As Professor Hunter Baker said of the Boudin case:

The reason for the existence of great discretion in the prosecutor’s hands is to avoid manifest injustice in specific cases. In other words, there could be compelling circumstances in a particular case that would make the ordinary operation of the law unjust. A good prosecutor can apply discretion to bring about a more just result. But that discretion is inappropriate when applied to cases in a blanket fashion. While there may be virtue in leniency exercised with regard to extenuating circumstances, it is a mistake to translate discretion into a decision to ignore the law in whole classes of crime.

Prosecutors are part of the executive apparatus of the legal system, not the legislative. They are to enforce the law, not make it. By treating some laws as illegitimate or not worth enforcing, Chesa Boudin effectively acted as a kind of king.

To pick a nit with Professor Baker’s description, to say discretion has been “applied to cases in a blanket fashion” is really just saying that discretion isn’t being applied at all – it means discretion has been replaced with a rule. A blanket decision is by definition one that is indiscriminate to specific circumstances, and it does not allow for distinctions to be made or allow for the discretion those distinctions require. Boudin, it can be said, used his power as DA to remove discretion from his prosecutors and replaced it with his own top-down mandates and rules. Indeed, this has been said by a prosecutor who had been working under Boudin:

“I agree with the spirit of some of the policies that he’s implemented, but where Chesa has failed is by removing prosecutorial discretion completely,” said Brooke Jenkins, a former homicide prosecutor who left the DA’s office in October and joined the recall movement.

Lam’s practical recommendations also leave me less than satisfied. I certainly recognize his laws of bureaudynamics in action – and I’ve witnessed organizations evolve through them firsthand numerous times. Lam recommends things like making rules that restore discretion periodically, having organizations that review the use of discretion as well as offering regular training into the most up to date information about discretion can best be employed. But why would any of these steps, themselves, not eventually end up getting caught up by the laws of bureaudynamics?

Lam suggests that “there should be ethics boards that evaluates discretionary decision-making and informs bureaucrats of how they are falling short” – but what will prevent these boards from themselves becoming the kinds of legalist institutions Lam is trying to excise? We can’t just assume these boards will be exempt from the laws of bureaudynamics, nor can we assume that the rule-making Lam recommends to insert discretion into the rules won’t itself go through the very processes that Lam identifies.

As is often the case, Scott Alexander put it well. Using the term “Moloch” as a metaphor for social processes that tend to trap societies in an inadequate equilibrium (the tragedy of the commons would be a classic example), Alexander described a “rookie mistake” people make:

The rookie mistake is: you see that some system is partly Moloch, so you say “Okay, we’ll fix that by putting it under the control of this other system. And we’ll control this other system by writing ‘DO NOT BECOME MOLOCH’ on it in bright red marker.”

(“I see capitalism sometimes gets misaligned. Let’s fix it by putting it under control of the government. We’ll control the government by having only virtuous people in high offices.”)

Lam recommends the use of ethics boards to review the use of discretion as its exercised by street-level bureaucrats. To me, the next obvious question is, “What will prevent those ethics boards from eventually becoming sclerotic, legalistic-to-the-extreme institutions like Institutional Review Boards? How will they be insulated from the laws of bureaudynamics?” If there’s an answer to this question in Lam’s book, I wasn’t able to discern it.

In my next and last post in this series, I’ll offer some final thoughts on Lam’s book overall.



Source link

Tags: fallsLampeoplerulesshort
ShareTweetShare
Previous Post

Denny’s CEO says she starts any new gig by ‘walking around with a little journal’ and asking staff the same questions

Next Post

What founders need to know about tech’s growing influence in D.C.

Related Posts

edit post
Mongolia to join data center frenzy with Chinggis Khaan sovereign wealth fund

Mongolia to join data center frenzy with Chinggis Khaan sovereign wealth fund

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 6, 2025
0

A view from the statue of Genghis Khan in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia on April 04, 2022.Anadolu | Anadolu | Getty ImagesMongolia,...

edit post
The Invisible Hierarchies that Rule Our World (with Toby Stuart)

The Invisible Hierarchies that Rule Our World (with Toby Stuart)

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 6, 2025
0

0:37Intro. Russ Roberts: Today is September 3rd, 2025 and my guest is Toby Stuart, the Leo Helzel Chair in Entrepreneurship...

edit post
Abolish the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Abolish the Bureau of Labor Statistics

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 6, 2025
0

President Trump caused a considerable stir in Washington when he fired Commissioner of Labor Statistics Erika McEntarfer back on August...

edit post
Millions Sign Petition To Dismantle UK Digital ID System

Millions Sign Petition To Dismantle UK Digital ID System

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 6, 2025
0

The people of the United Kingdom are fighting back against the government’s plan to roll out a digital ID system....

edit post
Fundraiser SOS! We Are REALLY Behind!

Fundraiser SOS! We Are REALLY Behind!

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 6, 2025
0

We are into the second week of our fundraiser. We are well behind where we need to be to keep...

edit post
KLG: Naked Capitalism – Your Essential Community

KLG: Naked Capitalism – Your Essential Community

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 5, 2025
0

By KLG I cannot remember how, but I found Naked Capitalism in the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis, but...

Next Post
edit post
What founders need to know about tech’s growing influence in D.C.

What founders need to know about tech’s growing influence in D.C.

edit post
Did Sam Altman Just Present a Shocking AI Roadmap to Congress?

Did Sam Altman Just Present a Shocking AI Roadmap to Congress?

  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
edit post
What Happens If a Spouse Dies Without a Will in North Carolina?

What Happens If a Spouse Dies Without a Will in North Carolina?

September 14, 2025
edit post
California May Reimplement Mask Mandates

California May Reimplement Mask Mandates

September 5, 2025
edit post
Does a Will Need to Be Notarized in North Carolina?

Does a Will Need to Be Notarized in North Carolina?

September 8, 2025
edit post
DACA recipients no longer eligible for Marketplace health insurance and subsidies

DACA recipients no longer eligible for Marketplace health insurance and subsidies

September 11, 2025
edit post
‘Quiet luxury’ is coming for the housing market, The Corcoran Group CEO says. It’s not just the Hamptons, Aspen, and Miami anymore

‘Quiet luxury’ is coming for the housing market, The Corcoran Group CEO says. It’s not just the Hamptons, Aspen, and Miami anymore

September 9, 2025
edit post
Tips to Apply for Mental Health SSDI Without Therapy

Tips to Apply for Mental Health SSDI Without Therapy

September 19, 2025
edit post
Paul Tudor Jones says ingredients are in place for massive rally before a ‘blow off’ top to bull market

Paul Tudor Jones says ingredients are in place for massive rally before a ‘blow off’ top to bull market

0
edit post
Mongolia to join data center frenzy with Chinggis Khaan sovereign wealth fund

Mongolia to join data center frenzy with Chinggis Khaan sovereign wealth fund

0
edit post
Ethereum’s Price as Grayscale Launches Staking ETPs – ,331?

Ethereum’s Price as Grayscale Launches Staking ETPs – $7,331?

0
edit post
When Moving to a “Resort-Like” Senior Living Community Isn’t Worth It

When Moving to a “Resort-Like” Senior Living Community Isn’t Worth It

0
edit post
AMD signs AI chip-supply deal with OpenAI, shares surge 38%

AMD signs AI chip-supply deal with OpenAI, shares surge 38%

0
edit post
Gen Z has a different attitude about dining from baby boomers and millennials—and it shows in smaller tickets at chain restaurants

Gen Z has a different attitude about dining from baby boomers and millennials—and it shows in smaller tickets at chain restaurants

0
edit post
Ethereum’s Price as Grayscale Launches Staking ETPs – ,331?

Ethereum’s Price as Grayscale Launches Staking ETPs – $7,331?

October 6, 2025
edit post
Paul Tudor Jones says ingredients are in place for massive rally before a ‘blow off’ top to bull market

Paul Tudor Jones says ingredients are in place for massive rally before a ‘blow off’ top to bull market

October 6, 2025
edit post
AMD signs AI chip-supply deal with OpenAI, shares surge 38%

AMD signs AI chip-supply deal with OpenAI, shares surge 38%

October 6, 2025
edit post
Gen Z has a different attitude about dining from baby boomers and millennials—and it shows in smaller tickets at chain restaurants

Gen Z has a different attitude about dining from baby boomers and millennials—and it shows in smaller tickets at chain restaurants

October 6, 2025
edit post
Should You Consider Adding Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG) to Your Portfolio?

Should You Consider Adding Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG) to Your Portfolio?

October 6, 2025
edit post
Are South Korean retail traders the only thing keeping Ethereum treasury companies alive?

Are South Korean retail traders the only thing keeping Ethereum treasury companies alive?

October 6, 2025
The Adviser Magazine

The first and only national digital and print magazine that connects individuals, families, and businesses to Fee-Only financial advisers, accountants, attorneys and college guidance counselors.

CATEGORIES

  • 401k Plans
  • Business
  • College
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Economy
  • Estate Plans
  • Financial Planning
  • Investing
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Legal
  • Market Analysis
  • Markets
  • Medicare
  • Money
  • Personal Finance
  • Social Security
  • Startups
  • Stock Market
  • Trading

LATEST UPDATES

  • Ethereum’s Price as Grayscale Launches Staking ETPs – $7,331?
  • Paul Tudor Jones says ingredients are in place for massive rally before a ‘blow off’ top to bull market
  • AMD signs AI chip-supply deal with OpenAI, shares surge 38%
  • Our Great Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use, Legal Notices & Disclosures
  • Contact us
  • About Us

© Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved
See articles for original source and related links to external sites.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Financial Planning
    • Financial Planning
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Research
    • Business
    • Investing
    • Money
    • Economy
    • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Trading
  • 401k Plans
  • College
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Estate Plans
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Legal

© Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved
See articles for original source and related links to external sites.