Mr. Howard's proposals remind me of my former co-worker Les Hancock's: The legislature can pass any law they want, but only 100 laws. Once they reach 100, each new law requires the repeal of an old one. ( )

We read this for reading club last year and I had forgotten all about it until I heard the author interviewed about his new book on C-Span's Q&A. The book was OK, but seemed to overly rely on scary anecdotes to make larger judgments about the state of the legal world. As far as common sense, it seems to me that much of what we do and how we react has less to do with common sense than our experience and our reaction to anecdotes. So we tend to be more fearful precisely because we have heard the horror stories of rampaging lawyers, suit-happy parents, etc. Many of the rules and regulations, the author decries, result from our feeble attempts to legitimize what appears to be common sense at the time. It's the misapplication of the rules that then leads us into the messes he describes. ( )

I have recommended this book to dozens of people and can't wait to dig it out of storage and re-read over the holidays. My big takeaway from the book was that at some point in the past, public servants went from being seen as bright competent people, who were given general guidance and asked to use their good judgement to now, when laws and regulations assume public servants to be feckless, lazy, untrustworthy souls. Thus, laws and regulations assume no good judgement and prescribe what public servants should do in every eventuality. This impossible effort results in numerous tragically absurd acts committed in the name of following the rules, rather than applying common sense. A very quick read. ( )

The Death of Common Sense
Phillip K. Howard
Dec 1, 1994

I am entering this note after skimming the book again in 2011. This is a powerful argument against the proliferation of laws, regulations and rights. The anecdotes, about regulations limiting school discipline, wheelchair users blocking the building of street toilets in Manhatten, OSHA and procurement regulations, are stunning. The author's insight is in how the process of legal argument and regulation inevitably lead to these absurdities. ( )

The author is a practicing corporate lawyer. His research on legal regulations across a broad horizon finds that the detailed volume of law is un-read, expensive, and often defeats the stated purposes: "We seem to have achieved the worst of both worlds: a system of regulation that goes too far while it also does too little." [11]

Without laying blame upon any particular individual or faction, the paradox is explained by the absence of the one indispensable ingredient of any successful human endeavor: use of judgment.

Noting that detailed laws are designed to reduce arbitrary human discretion, but they increase bureaucratic red tape. The rules interfere with common sense, make personal responsibility too remote, and have taken away citizens' power to make decisions--the core principle of freedom.

"We need to fundamentally change the rules." Make personal responsibility the law of the land and the goal of the law. Query: What impact would this approach have on a corporation that takes profits to itself while leaving polluted water, air and land? How would Koch Industries, or a Koch, take "personal responsibility"? ( )