Fantastic post, an overreliance on process can end up with an inflexible and stiff system. I’d like to add an example I’ve personally encountered in my own life, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” of schools back in the mid 2000s. I was often bullied in middle school and at one point in my life a kid was pulling on my coat while I had something in my hand. It slipped out and hit them, which caused them to beat me to the floor and punch me in the face repeatedly until the teachers stopped them. The school of course responded to their violence with a suspension (as is proper) but also tried to suspend me as well until my dad made it clear that he would not back down on the matter and demanded to see the tapes. The school folded and I was not suspended. If my father had not been such a fierce advocate, I would have been punished for the crime of being a victim. Human systems are not created with a perfect vision of the future being followed by robots, it simply can not predict every exception in every way and even if it could it would be too confusing to follow.
And yet I think this goes too hard on process and procedure in some ways. You acknowledge this with how society would collapse without rules and process, but I think it’s better to look at the problem as one of tradeoffs. The limits on human flexibility are often a negative, but time and time again we flock to them. Why is that? Because without clear rules and procedure, humans can be really stupid, emotional and egotistical.
Rules are accountability sinks in part because they’re the ones that create accountability to begin with. A society that follows its own rules is a society that builds up credibility overtime. As an example there are issues with the American legal system but I would much prefer to have the worst American judge looking over my case than the best North Korean one. The worst American judge is still at least somewhat accountable to the rules, and I can appeal and appeal upwards quite a bit. If I upset a political leader like a mayor, senator or president, it’s difficult for them to corrupt not just the worst American judge but all the judges throughout the appeals process. The best North Korean judge however has no such process. If Kim Jong Un tells him to give me the death penalty, then I die.
This exists because of rules and process. While America has not been literally perfect and will likely never be literally perfect, I can still generally trust in the system. I can generally trust that a prosecutor must bring more evidence to a trial than “I don’t like him and want him to be guilty”, I can generally trust that a judge won’t sentence me just because he doesn’t like my face. And I can generally trust that the rest of government will do the same, that my mayor will not lean over to his police buddies and have me thrown in jail without a shred of proof. And even if that does happen, I can generally trust that when the court says “Let them go”, I will be let out. I can do all of this because America has rules and process and obeys them the large majority of the time.
Ultimately rules are just words on paper, but our collective trust and faith in them creates a stable society where they do generally get enforced. Not perfectly, but better than most other nations both nowadays and in history. Sometimes rules get distorted, sometimes they get abused, sometimes they mandate things that shouldn’t happen but I can at least trust that they will *generally* be followed and violators will *generally* be punished when possible and thus I can feel safe and assured that if tomorrow I insult my mayor, my governor, my senator, my local police chief, or my president that their hand can not easily reach out and slay me with their power. We can and should work on seeking a better balance when possible, but it is precisely this inflexibility that keeps me safe, and that means we trade off that sometimes rules take a little bit too much away. Thhanks to rules, I can also generally expect my bully to be punished for punching me.
And at the very least, I can predict the actions of a rules and process addict even if they are bad rules. Even in a county where you get the death penalty for speaking out against the Dear Leader, as long as they follow process you can at least know the outcome before you speak out. Unlike in many of those old school monarchies where the rules were shifting and vague based off the current feelings of the monarch.
In 536 BC, toward the end of the Spring and Autumn period, the state of Zheng cast a penal code in bronze. By the standards of the time, this was absolutely shocking, an upending of the existing order—to not only have a written law code, but to prepare it for public display so everyone could read it. A minister of a neighboring state wrote a lengthy protest to his friend Zichan, then the chief minister of Zheng:
“In the beginning I expected much from you, but now I no longer do so. Long ago, the former kings consulted about matters to decide them but did not make penal codes, for they feared that the people would become contentious. When they still could not manage the people, they fenced them in with dutifulness, bound them with governance, employed them with ritual propriety, maintained them with good faith, and fostered them with nobility of spirit. They determined the correct stipends and ranks to encourage their obedience, and meted out strict punishments and penalties to overawe them in their excesses. Fearing that that still was not enough, they taught them loyalty, rewarded good conduct, instructed them in their duties, employed them harmoniously, supervised them with vigilance, oversaw them with might, and judged them with rigor. Moreover, they sought superiors who were sage and principled, officials who were brilliant and discerning, elders who were loyal and trustworthy, and teachers who were kind and generous. With this, then, the people could be employed without disaster or disorder. When the people know that there is a code, they will not be in awe of their superiors. Together they bicker, appeal to the code, and seek to achieve their goals by trying their luck. They cannot be governed.
“When there was disorder in the Xia government, they created the ‘Punishments of Yu.’ When there was disorder in the Shang government, they created the ‘Punishments of Tang.’ When there was disorder in the Zhou government, they composed the ‘Nine Punishments.’ These three penal codes in each case arose in the dynasty’s waning era. Now as chief minister in the domain of Zheng you, Zichan, have created fields and ditches, established an administration that is widely reviled, fixed the three statutes, and cast the penal code. Will it not be difficult to calm the people by such means? As it says in the Odes,
Take the virtue of King Wen as a guide, a model, a pattern;
Day by day calm the four quarters.
And as it says elsewhere,
Take as model King Wen,
And the ten thousand realms have trust.
In such an ideal case, why should there be any penal codes at all? When the people have learned how to contend over points of law, they will abandon ritual propriety and appeal to what is written. Even at chisel’s tip and knife’s edge they will contend. A chaotic litigiousness will flourish and bribes will circulate everywhere.
“Will Zheng perhaps perish at the end of your generation? I have heard that ‘when a domain is about to fall, its regulations are sure to proliferate.’ Perhaps this is what is meant?”
Zichan wrote back:
“It is as you have said, sir. I am untalented, and my good fortune will not reach as far as my sons and grandsons. I have done it to save this generation.”
Fantastic post, an overreliance on process can end up with an inflexible and stiff system. I’d like to add an example I’ve personally encountered in my own life, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” of schools back in the mid 2000s. I was often bullied in middle school and at one point in my life a kid was pulling on my coat while I had something in my hand. It slipped out and hit them, which caused them to beat me to the floor and punch me in the face repeatedly until the teachers stopped them. The school of course responded to their violence with a suspension (as is proper) but also tried to suspend me as well until my dad made it clear that he would not back down on the matter and demanded to see the tapes. The school folded and I was not suspended. If my father had not been such a fierce advocate, I would have been punished for the crime of being a victim. Human systems are not created with a perfect vision of the future being followed by robots, it simply can not predict every exception in every way and even if it could it would be too confusing to follow.
And yet I think this goes too hard on process and procedure in some ways. You acknowledge this with how society would collapse without rules and process, but I think it’s better to look at the problem as one of tradeoffs. The limits on human flexibility are often a negative, but time and time again we flock to them. Why is that? Because without clear rules and procedure, humans can be really stupid, emotional and egotistical.
Rules are accountability sinks in part because they’re the ones that create accountability to begin with. A society that follows its own rules is a society that builds up credibility overtime. As an example there are issues with the American legal system but I would much prefer to have the worst American judge looking over my case than the best North Korean one. The worst American judge is still at least somewhat accountable to the rules, and I can appeal and appeal upwards quite a bit. If I upset a political leader like a mayor, senator or president, it’s difficult for them to corrupt not just the worst American judge but all the judges throughout the appeals process. The best North Korean judge however has no such process. If Kim Jong Un tells him to give me the death penalty, then I die.
This exists because of rules and process. While America has not been literally perfect and will likely never be literally perfect, I can still generally trust in the system. I can generally trust that a prosecutor must bring more evidence to a trial than “I don’t like him and want him to be guilty”, I can generally trust that a judge won’t sentence me just because he doesn’t like my face. And I can generally trust that the rest of government will do the same, that my mayor will not lean over to his police buddies and have me thrown in jail without a shred of proof. And even if that does happen, I can generally trust that when the court says “Let them go”, I will be let out. I can do all of this because America has rules and process and obeys them the large majority of the time.
Ultimately rules are just words on paper, but our collective trust and faith in them creates a stable society where they do generally get enforced. Not perfectly, but better than most other nations both nowadays and in history. Sometimes rules get distorted, sometimes they get abused, sometimes they mandate things that shouldn’t happen but I can at least trust that they will *generally* be followed and violators will *generally* be punished when possible and thus I can feel safe and assured that if tomorrow I insult my mayor, my governor, my senator, my local police chief, or my president that their hand can not easily reach out and slay me with their power. We can and should work on seeking a better balance when possible, but it is precisely this inflexibility that keeps me safe, and that means we trade off that sometimes rules take a little bit too much away. Thhanks to rules, I can also generally expect my bully to be punished for punching me.
And at the very least, I can predict the actions of a rules and process addict even if they are bad rules. Even in a county where you get the death penalty for speaking out against the Dear Leader, as long as they follow process you can at least know the outcome before you speak out. Unlike in many of those old school monarchies where the rules were shifting and vague based off the current feelings of the monarch.
A story of ancient China, as retold by a book reviewer:
In 536 BC, toward the end of the Spring and Autumn period, the state of Zheng cast a penal code in bronze. By the standards of the time, this was absolutely shocking, an upending of the existing order—to not only have a written law code, but to prepare it for public display so everyone could read it. A minister of a neighboring state wrote a lengthy protest to his friend Zichan, then the chief minister of Zheng:
Zichan wrote back: