Yeah, I used to disagree with that: it seems like the focus on *intent* rather than *outcome* was a crucial cultural package (see Henrich's "WEIRDest people in the world"); and it seems like the voucher idea relies on switching back towards an outcomes-focused system. But now I think his idea is one of the only ways we can avoid an unaccountable bureaucracy setting up opaque procedures for determining intent. It intuitively fits together with his "vote on values, bet on beliefs" bit, but I guess my suggestion re this piece would be that the bets and vouchers should be "valued" by judges not congresses.
I'm a big fan of your portrayal of the Civil Service (I am a 20 year civil servant, incidentally). If the Supreme court has been undermining themselves in the way you describe for the past five decades, how does it make sense from the perspective of the citizenry for them to exercise greater power? How would they do so?
Thanks -- I'll try to describe this in part three, but the general gist is that I think they should focus on the normative rather than the procedural; i.e. that they should straightforwardly tell us where they'd like to go, and judge cases based on whether the relevant parties are going astray, instead of setting up checklists and best practices and hiding from the consequences.
One of William Stuntz' complaint about the Warren Court (and really, the Bill of Rights vs Rights of Man) is their focus on procedural rather than substantive issues.
Robin Hanson wants to bring back the era of thief takers & bounty hunters sans police:
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/who-vouches-for-youhtml
I don't think dropping the claim of Oxfordian authorship in the middle of your essay helps it.
Yeah, I used to disagree with that: it seems like the focus on *intent* rather than *outcome* was a crucial cultural package (see Henrich's "WEIRDest people in the world"); and it seems like the voucher idea relies on switching back towards an outcomes-focused system. But now I think his idea is one of the only ways we can avoid an unaccountable bureaucracy setting up opaque procedures for determining intent. It intuitively fits together with his "vote on values, bet on beliefs" bit, but I guess my suggestion re this piece would be that the bets and vouchers should be "valued" by judges not congresses.
I'm a big fan of your portrayal of the Civil Service (I am a 20 year civil servant, incidentally). If the Supreme court has been undermining themselves in the way you describe for the past five decades, how does it make sense from the perspective of the citizenry for them to exercise greater power? How would they do so?
Thanks -- I'll try to describe this in part three, but the general gist is that I think they should focus on the normative rather than the procedural; i.e. that they should straightforwardly tell us where they'd like to go, and judge cases based on whether the relevant parties are going astray, instead of setting up checklists and best practices and hiding from the consequences.
One of William Stuntz' complaint about the Warren Court (and really, the Bill of Rights vs Rights of Man) is their focus on procedural rather than substantive issues.
https://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/the-collapse-of-american-criminal-justice/