[dmreedy]

Indeed so; and not just government, any bureaucracy of sufficient size. To take a bit of a pop-sci angle, then as soon as you pass Dunbar's Number.

A video essayist I follow on youtube had a bit of a discussion about this, about being on the receiving end, after his car had been stolen, joy-ridden, and then set on fire. He was required to pay impound fees for the wreck, using proof of ownership that had been in the glove box. When he told this to the clerk at the impound lot, the response came, "Well, that's going to be a bit of a problem, isn't it?". And followed the red haze and the realization that these lots don't have bullet-proof glass in front of the counter to protect from robbery.

But I'd argue that it's borderline impossible to genuinely account for even the second tier of possible edge cases, even in the best of faith; law is too complex, and world changes at different rates in different places in too many ways to make that kind of considered extrapolation anything but speculative in the best case, and hopeful, well-intentioned gambling in the worst. Incidentally, this is a typical argument against regulation, though I'm not sure I agree with that, either...

[notus]

I agree that it is probably impossible to account for a lot of edge cases, but then that means there should be more generalized methods for recourse when people feel that the law hasn't accounted for their situation. It sounds like the courts in this situation were just deferring to existing law rather than realizing there is an issue with it and addressing it.

[Bartweiss]

Frank Herbert wrote a couple of novels about the Bureau of Sabotage.

The setting had a government so powerful that it could cause horrible problems with offhand decisions, and so large that it couldn't be reasoned with or set unified policy. (It rather reminds me computerized stock trading today, with problems like the "flash crash" where decisions outrun the actual intent of any human involved.) It couldn't shrink or slow down and still handle genuinely pressing decisions, so the solution was an agency meant to delay and interrupt whatever actions it thought would cause problems.

I certainly don't think modern governments are so efficient they need to be intentionally delayed, but the nature of the department is interesting: powerful and almost unrestricted in oversight, but strictly reactive and unable to make policy. It's not a perfect fix, but regulatory capture and incompetence are less worrying when the people deciding on government procedures aren't the same ones enforcing them.

In the real world, that might look like a Department of Exceptions. It would be unable to make or even change policy, but would have broad power to reverse specific government decisions. The point isn't to fix bad governance, that's too hard a problem, but to fix issues like this where the edge cases of a rule produce absurd results. For safety from overreach, it would probably need to be one-sided; able to undo government actions on private entities, but not apply new ones or step into private disputes. (I.e. it can grant you a car registration without the normal papers, but it can't peanlize a non-crime or reverse a civil lawsuit.) And for safety from capture, it can't be unaccountable, but holding it to strict policies would be self-defeating - perhaps the best fix would simply be to record common-sense rationales for each decision, and set a low bar to fire or vote out employees for bad decisions.

It's a wild idea, and I can see a host of possible issues. But your point about courts is interesting: we already have a system which can't make law, but has enormous power to review government decisions. This would be much the same idea, aimed at irrational actions instead of illegal ones.

[logfromblammo]

And by "a couple", it is just that. There are exactly two novels set in the ConSentiency Universe: Whipping Star and The Dosadi Experiment. There are also two short stories, available in the collection Eye. The Dune Universe proved more popular, but I think ConSentiency would have been more movie-and-television friendly. There's plenty of space in there for rubber-mask aliens.

[im3w1l]

I think it could be better solved by a jury of random people with some leeway to bend the letter of the law. Similar to, but not exactly the same as jury nullification.

[pas]

Isn't the institution of the ombudsman has this purpose?

[dmreedy]

Just for the record, I didn't mean to sound like I was happy about that point :). A more generalized system of recourse is an interesting idea, but I'm having a hard time imagining (and likely the fault of my own imagination) something more general than a court system. Either way, I feel like it'll be an immensely difficult uphill battle no matter what, because it's always easier to take the conservative route and defer to precedence, even if there's an acknowledged issue.

How does one rattle an institution out of its comfort zone? It's a pretty old question.

[ta0987]

IIUC Common law courts were supposed to be exactly that - that's where the concept of judicial precedent comes from. When a court hears a case and decides it's different enough from previous cases it makes a new ruling for that scenario which is now a precedent for other cases in that scenario. The collection of rulings built up over time is the law.

[matthewheath]

Indeed, although the system of precedent has its own challenges — bad law can be created by a court unilaterally and exist for years or decades before being overturned by a superior court.

[loquor]

Your point regarding regulation is quite pertinent. How do you refute the idea that strict regulation will create a non-navigable mess?

[dmreedy]

I don't, except by the weak negative; I feel that lack of strict regulation creates a predatory, cruel, socially violent mess, which feels less desirable to me. Not to imply that the banal evil of a bureaucratic mess is not a bad thing.