Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion

Norton Shorts

by Barry Lam

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.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Sociology

176 pages, Hardcover

Published February 11, 2025

Reviews

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great, short book. I believe the author is either a political or legal philosopher, and he basically argues that we have too many rules and don’t use discretion enough. For example, there are a lot of laws, like mandatory minimum sentences, and other rules that run our societies that are harmful. Instead, we should be teaching people to be better, ethical human beings, and we can do that by spending more time in the nuances.

One of my favorite parts of the book is towards the end when he discusses parenting his child. He talks about how he doesn’t want his kid to clean the house or treat people kindly simply because it’s a rule, and he feels like he’d have done something wrong if that were the case. His goal is that his child will do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing, and I think that’s a pretty good goal for all of us.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Alex Madva · Rating 5 out of 5]

No one has done more than Barry Lam to bring exhilarating and rigorous philosophy to a broad audience. After launching his groundbreaking podcast Hi-Phi Nation and then training scores of philosophers to make podcasts and op-eds of their own, this book is decisive evidence that Lam has mastered the ability to advance innovative, compelling, and thought-provoking arguments grounded in fascinating true stories. These stories are themselves the product of Lam's painstaking, yearslong work in the field, interviewing and shadowing people navigating complex bureaucracies and rules. It's amazing how much nuance he packed into such a short, readable book. His argument that we should rely less on rules and do more to cultivate shared skills for discretion and attention to context is incredibly persuasive. I read this as part of a faculty-student reading group at my university in the Spring 2025 and the praise -- from students and teachers, with wide-ranging degrees of familiarity with philosophy -- was unanimous. The later chapters on the role of AI and automation, as we delegate more and more of discretion and decisions to our new AI overlords, make this an especially timely contribution to the ongoing conversation about how to structure our shared lives.

[Zane Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve been interested in this topic since reading Solzhenitsyn’s speech to Harvard, which argues Americans rely on laws instead of morality.

This book makes a very similar argument, albeit from a very different angle. I will give the author full credit for his arguments in favor of more discretion over legalism. Discretion clearly is preferable and legalism is clearly a lesser option.

That said, the book has, through no fault of the author, EXTREMELY poor timing. If legalism is a way to get around mistrust, then unfortunately in 2025 we need mountains of legalism and virtually no discretion. We seem to be entering a period of bad faith actors, who will use any discretion to maximize the injustice they hope to inflict.

So, in the end, because of this moment in time, the book ends up feeling hopelessly utopian. We need a clearer path to better people, and that’s not going to be an easy problem to solve.

[Cooper Napoles · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got the opportunity to listen to Dr.Lam give a lecture and the chance to meet him before I read this book, which was a pleasure. I did enjoy this book. I found the main argument quite interesting. That by choosing to make more discretionary decisions we enable a system that is run on morality and not laws. This is true, at least in concept, and provides a case for a different type of future. In which we have not grown our legal institutions through ever-increasing and more complex laws, but through better morality.

This book has made me think about the law in ways I haven't before; do I put principle or law first? I think this book is an excellent launching point to open up this topic, as it lays out the foundation the next question is: where do we go from here? How do we enable institutions with more discretion in a safe, morally positive way?

[Jac Filer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a quick and thoughtful book that examines not only the impact of an inclination toward legalism, but the origins of such inclinations in the first place.

From there, it makes a convincing case for allowing more discretion, not at the expense of rules, but within a less constrained, but still sensible, framework.

Where the book is light is in making the case that fewer rules will lead to better people. While that author makes a substantial argument that excessive bureaucracy encourages mediocrity, he stops short of articulating how cutting red tape reverses the trend, much less how it does so for good outcomes.

[Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lam puts on a master class in doing ethics in an accessible and provocative way, to examine the "bureaudynamics" that pull our institutions into legalism. This isn't a professor griping about bureaucracy, but an ethicist drawing on Han Fei and John Locke and other philosophical legalists to indict what a reliance on rules does to us, at a moral level. Pulling together examples from sentencing guidelines in American courts to childhood chores to AI paper grading, Lam's story is compelling - and ends with some worthwhile suggestions for restoring judgment into parenting decisions or university governance, and our other, increasingly legalistic systems.

[Tracey Bonner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most philosophy is very dry and boring, but this is more journalism and research. It has entertaining stories and anecdotes about why we're inclined to become more and more burdened by rules over time, and how to fight back. There's a good chapter about the coming AI replacement of human decision-making. Its a very quick read, you can do it in a day.

[Joyce · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lam's research and analysis gives the reader pause to ponder rules versus discretion in the system of justice. The reader is challenged to decide whether or not discretion may be necessary in some areas.
A good read.

[Joanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found Lam’s case for discretion being a morally appropriate way to interpret rules and laws compelling and thought provoking. This would be a great book to read with others and then discuss the tenets of his argument.

Thank you to WW Norton for providing an advance readers copy.

[Cheryl]

He's not wrong. But what can he, or I, do about except vote for (and maybe campaign for) reformists? Readable, interesting, but after awhile I just felt I needed to move on to my other books. May 2025

[Josh · Rating 1 out of 5]

This uses a standard popular nonfiction format, which unfortunately is just really not my jam. It makes for a book that's light on ideas and information and I don't think anything inside was particularly interesting or insightful.

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gets right to the point, leads the reader through the pertinent arguments, & is neither too simplistic nor too highbrow. Kept my interest. With the potential of AI rules-based decisions in our future, seems like a very relevant topic.

[Nancy Gallagher · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very easy read with some very profound thoughts. I enjoyed it so much!

[Erika · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gave words to some thoughts I’ve had, but overall it was just philosophical musings which is not really my jam.

[Alyssa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and helpful for navigating parenting and the advent of AI. I have better words for my opinions on those topics.