Imagine driving in a world with no traffic controls-no speed limits, no traffic lights, no stop signs, and no rights to prevent or punish reckless driving. Now imagine driving in a world brimming with a plethora of traffic controls-lights at every corner, every street a one-way, speed zones changing by the block, causes of action available to challenge the slightest of driving inetiquettes. In which world would you rather drive? In the lawless world-the world of total driver freedom-would you not yearn for some degree of socially imposed management of the exercise of free will, so that navigating each intersection would not require negotiations with other motorists? In the world of omnipresent controls-the world of total social suppression of free will-would you not long for the discretion to move about with some self-judgment and freedom? Where is the point, balanced between too much and too little control of free will, at which individual freedom, third-party rights, and social regulation are mutually optimized so as to produce a world of happy drivers moving in an efficient, adaptive flow of traffic? And which measures are the best to adopt in striking that balance? These are questions for the scientific theory of nonlinear dynamical system behavior, and they are the subject of this Article.
J. B. Ruhl,
Complexity Theory As a Paradigm for the Dynamical Law-and-Society System: A Wake-Up Call for Legal Reductionism and the Modern Administrative State,
45 Duke Law Journal
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol45/iss5/1