The Paradox of Rules: Why We Feel Both Over-Governed and ungoverned
We live in a strange time. A time where the feeling of being stifled by rules clashes sharply with the perception that the powerful operate above them.This isn’t a new tension, but it’s reaching a breaking point, sparking a critical conversation about the very purpose of rules in modern society. Prominent thinkers – journalists like Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and government reformer Jennifer Pahlka – are all pointing too the same core issue: our rule systems are fundamentally broken.
But why? And what can we do about it?
The Two Sides of the Coin: Rule-Bound vs. Lawless
The disconnect is stark. On one side, everyday citizens face increasing micromanagement. Doctors struggle with insurance company bureaucracy (as highlighted in this short video: https://youtube.com/shorts/YRfSm8sMpKQ?si=cWP2yC562VBaPUsO), and school principals find their authority undermined by rigid, opaque union processes (as detailed in this New Yorker piece: tax avoidance by the ultra-wealthy, and gerrymandered voting districts all contribute to a sense that the system is rigged. This creates a deeply unsettling paradox: a society drowning in regulations, yet simultaneously feeling lawless.
What Are Rules For? A Historical outlook
It’s easy to assume rules are simply about preventing chaos. We envision a Hobbesian “state of nature” – a brutal, anarchic world without laws. But that’s a limited view. The real question isn’t if we need rules, but why we have so many, and why thay often seem to miss the mark.
To understand this, we need to look back. Author Daniel Lam, in his work explored by The New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/10/abundance-ezra-klein-derek-thompson-book-review), turns to the ancient Chinese philosopher Han Fei and the school of Legalism.
Han Fei lived during the tumultuous Warring States Period, when China was consolidating from numerous fiefdoms into a unified nation.His central concern wasn’t preventing anarchy, but achieving effective governance at scale.
The Problem with Relying on “Good People”
Han fei’s insight is remarkably relevant today. He recognized that relying on the inherent goodness or competence of leaders and bureaucrats is a flawed strategy. He didn’t believe people were inherently bad, just… mediocre.
Here’s the core of his argument:
Statistical Reality: In any large group, you’ll inevitably encounter a range of abilities. Expecting consistently excellent performance from a large bureaucracy is unrealistic. The Inevitability of Turnover: Even if you assemble a stellar team today, personnel changes will inevitably lead to a decline in quality over time. Governance shouldn’t Depend on Individuals: Tying the success of a nation to the virtue of its leaders is a precarious proposition.
As lam explains, Han Fei believed that essential functions – economic stability, conflict resolution, fair trade – shouldn’t hinge on the unpredictable quality of people in power.
The Solution: Rules Designed for mediocrity
So, what’s the answer? Han Fei argued for a system of clear, detailed rules designed to function even in the presence of mediocrity*. This isn’t about distrusting individuals, but about
Keep reading