The proposal to remove justice from the state’s responsibility is risky. But so is the proposal to remove truth from the state’s responsibility for justice. We are heading, perhaps inevitably, to the second option. We could at least consider the first option.
At some point, we should free ourselves to ask whether we can make a more modern form of government that better accommodates the modern challenges of the diverse populations and global influences and consequences. It is highly unlikely that a democratic (or democratic republic) can ever have the authority to make these optimal decisions that will inevitably result in condemnation by the majority.
Contrary to President Trump’s declaration, we have an inescapable need to have laws that coerce, dominate, and control our lives. There may be some people who think they can live without those laws, but I suspect that will only work when they are on an island isolated from any dissenting peers. There is something deep within us that recognizes that the rule of law is essential to our being humans.
This system of governance inevitably results in over criminalizing because it equates so many unrelated violations of law into a single category of a crime requiring a prison sentence. We may need these laws, and for argument’s sake I’ll grant that prison sentences are a valid form of punishment. I question the need for all of these laws to require prison penalties. I question the wisdom of equating any violation of such a wide range of laws to be a single category: an imprisonable convict.
Government by data requires collection of observations of actual modern behavior unbiased by traditional interpretations and one of the sources of such bias is the retention of obsolete laws. We have always introduced new laws to address some immediate concern. We now live in an era where we have the option to retire old laws to confirm that that earlier concern is no longer a problem. Restricting the number of laws enforced gives us the best data about what is most important today. Also such restraint on number of effective laws reduces the chances of misinterpreting behaviors of people disobeying an obsolete law in order to address some new problem. In that case, we need to discover that new problem instead of wasting energy on strengthening the enforcement of a law that has outlived its utility.
We should study observations separately from derivations from theories. The deliberately ignorant takes the position that data is superior to science. There is a valid place for the deliberately ignorant when included in teams with domain experts representing each of the relevant scientific disciplines. In order to work, the deliberately ignorant needs to be skilled at his craft of being ignorant in the right way to propel the team towards a new solution without annoying everyone to the point of being expelled.
An example is coming to the rescue of someone who is in a perilous condition such the case of a drowning person. If suitably capable, both men and women will come to the rescue. However, I believe they are drawing upon fundamentally different instincts: the woman will be drawing on the compassion to relieve the person, while the man will be drawing upon the recognition that the drowning person needs to be mercifully extracted from a lost battle against nature. Once the person is saved, he would receive reassurance type comfort from a woman, but probably will receive from the man a word or two of advice about how to avoid that situation in the future.