I was a regulator and had to restrain people from coming up with a new rule every time something went wrong. I found that Montaigne was onto this in the 1500s:
"We can see how wrong that fellow was: in France we have more laws than all the rest of the world put together – more than would be required to make rules for all those worlds of Epicurus; [C] ‘ut olim flagitiis, sic nunc legibus laboramus’ [we were once distressed by crimes: now, by laws].8 [B] And, even then, we have left so much to the discretion and opinion of our judges that never was there liberty so licentious and powerful. What have our legislators gained by isolating a hundred thousand categories and specific circumstances, and then making a hundred thousand laws apply to them? That number bears no relationship to the infinite variations in the things which humans do. The multiplicity of our human inventions will never attain to the diversity of our cases. Add a hundred times more: but never will it happen that even one of all the many thousands of cases which you have already isolated and codified will ever meet one future case to which it can be matched and compared so exactly that some detail or some other specific item does not require a specific judgement. There is hardly any relation between our actions (which are perpetually changing) and fixed unchanging laws.
The most desirable laws are those which are fewest, simplest and most general."[1]
Some rules (lawyers, doctors, teachers, accountants) can cover most wrongdoing simply: do not act dishonestly; act with integrity; act in the best interests of your client/patient/student etc.
As for humans being good... history rather undermines that (as does the present). I would generally be with John Gray (political philosopher) and his view of humanity.
I find this argument very compelling but still hold faith that, as said below, what’s keeping that guys around is lack of imagination. I’m tempted to understand what causes and motivates that guys, and imagine a utopian future where they no longer crop up. But maybe another day, I got errands to do today.
The final quoted passage was a puzzle to me, because it's so backwards from how I approach the world, but I think I've found an inroad:
Aside from the lack of imagination about how we can organize things without government (ie, we would still take the trash out and coordinate the distribution of goods and services even if we weren't compelled to by threat of prison and homelessness), the main contradiction that stood out to me was the assertion that if we lived in a world without military or police, there would be nothing to stop a person from amassing a private army or taking control of nuclear weapons.
But in fact, the absence of police or military would prevent this build up of aggressive force. It would prevent it the same way fires are prevented from spreading by removing brush and maintaining a line — basically thru starvation.
How would we achieve a world without militaries in the first place? It's absurd to simply ctrl alt delete, to pluck one element out of existing society and leave everything else the same. Of course that would never happen. Alternatively, you could assume police and militaries never developed in the first place. But then where would someone get the idea of amassing a private army? More importantly, who would go along with such an idea?
If we accept the possibility of a world without police or militaries, it seems these concerns about bad actors having an enormously outsized impact on their communities answer themselves. They just wouldn't. The real challenge is whether it's possible to achieve such a world. Concerns about recreating our current systems are valid to an extent, but more often than not seem to be the inability to really accept the idea that things could actually be any different.
Great thoughts, as always! I'm wondering about the no rules libertarian inserted into the piece. I'm assuming that refers to the '25th libertarian,' who claims that having no rules is the 'libertarian ideal,' and then goes on to prove it's not practical at scale. Or, God forbid, perhaps I'm the 25th libertarian! One of the rear few who think that natural law and a principle of not aggressing against others could actually be far more practical at scale than anything we have seen to date. But, I do get your point entirely and must apologize for my snarky sensitivity.
I enjoyed it a lot. A very intelligent commentary that's charmingly written. You'd be interested in "The Parable of the Tribes," a book from a few decades ago that got some big prize for countering the notion that it always takes two to tango in a new agey idea of mutual responsibility: "Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one choose peace? From this basic premise, Andrew Bard Schmookler has built a towering work of intellectual and spiritual insight, a book that will shatter many preconceived notions about how civilization has developed and why human history has been so filled with torment."
When it comes to bad behavior by multinational corporations, I don't think we are talking about "edge" cases anymore. I think environmental pollution or tax fraud are easily normalized if the right incentives are in place. But sometimes it is just one guy. Thanks to Richard Reid in 2006, we all have to take off our shoes before boarding a flight.
I was a regulator and had to restrain people from coming up with a new rule every time something went wrong. I found that Montaigne was onto this in the 1500s:
"We can see how wrong that fellow was: in France we have more laws than all the rest of the world put together – more than would be required to make rules for all those worlds of Epicurus; [C] ‘ut olim flagitiis, sic nunc legibus laboramus’ [we were once distressed by crimes: now, by laws].8 [B] And, even then, we have left so much to the discretion and opinion of our judges that never was there liberty so licentious and powerful. What have our legislators gained by isolating a hundred thousand categories and specific circumstances, and then making a hundred thousand laws apply to them? That number bears no relationship to the infinite variations in the things which humans do. The multiplicity of our human inventions will never attain to the diversity of our cases. Add a hundred times more: but never will it happen that even one of all the many thousands of cases which you have already isolated and codified will ever meet one future case to which it can be matched and compared so exactly that some detail or some other specific item does not require a specific judgement. There is hardly any relation between our actions (which are perpetually changing) and fixed unchanging laws.
The most desirable laws are those which are fewest, simplest and most general."[1]
Some rules (lawyers, doctors, teachers, accountants) can cover most wrongdoing simply: do not act dishonestly; act with integrity; act in the best interests of your client/patient/student etc.
As for humans being good... history rather undermines that (as does the present). I would generally be with John Gray (political philosopher) and his view of humanity.
[1] Montaigne, Michel. The Complete Essays (p. 1208). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
I find this argument very compelling but still hold faith that, as said below, what’s keeping that guys around is lack of imagination. I’m tempted to understand what causes and motivates that guys, and imagine a utopian future where they no longer crop up. But maybe another day, I got errands to do today.
The final quoted passage was a puzzle to me, because it's so backwards from how I approach the world, but I think I've found an inroad:
Aside from the lack of imagination about how we can organize things without government (ie, we would still take the trash out and coordinate the distribution of goods and services even if we weren't compelled to by threat of prison and homelessness), the main contradiction that stood out to me was the assertion that if we lived in a world without military or police, there would be nothing to stop a person from amassing a private army or taking control of nuclear weapons.
But in fact, the absence of police or military would prevent this build up of aggressive force. It would prevent it the same way fires are prevented from spreading by removing brush and maintaining a line — basically thru starvation.
How would we achieve a world without militaries in the first place? It's absurd to simply ctrl alt delete, to pluck one element out of existing society and leave everything else the same. Of course that would never happen. Alternatively, you could assume police and militaries never developed in the first place. But then where would someone get the idea of amassing a private army? More importantly, who would go along with such an idea?
If we accept the possibility of a world without police or militaries, it seems these concerns about bad actors having an enormously outsized impact on their communities answer themselves. They just wouldn't. The real challenge is whether it's possible to achieve such a world. Concerns about recreating our current systems are valid to an extent, but more often than not seem to be the inability to really accept the idea that things could actually be any different.
Two words: mob justice.
Great thoughts, as always! I'm wondering about the no rules libertarian inserted into the piece. I'm assuming that refers to the '25th libertarian,' who claims that having no rules is the 'libertarian ideal,' and then goes on to prove it's not practical at scale. Or, God forbid, perhaps I'm the 25th libertarian! One of the rear few who think that natural law and a principle of not aggressing against others could actually be far more practical at scale than anything we have seen to date. But, I do get your point entirely and must apologize for my snarky sensitivity.
I enjoyed it a lot. A very intelligent commentary that's charmingly written. You'd be interested in "The Parable of the Tribes," a book from a few decades ago that got some big prize for countering the notion that it always takes two to tango in a new agey idea of mutual responsibility: "Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one choose peace? From this basic premise, Andrew Bard Schmookler has built a towering work of intellectual and spiritual insight, a book that will shatter many preconceived notions about how civilization has developed and why human history has been so filled with torment."
I understand the need for rules, but this?
"don’t hold your breath underwater"
SMH, ok, yeah, don't hold your breath SO LONG that you pass out & your body's natural instinct to breathe kicks in and you DROWN, but STILL!
It constantly amazes me how dumb some folks are that they need to be told this sort of common sense thing.
But then again, common sense is anything but common these days.
When it comes to bad behavior by multinational corporations, I don't think we are talking about "edge" cases anymore. I think environmental pollution or tax fraud are easily normalized if the right incentives are in place. But sometimes it is just one guy. Thanks to Richard Reid in 2006, we all have to take off our shoes before boarding a flight.