Interesting and informative essay! I never knew about Eduardo García de Enterría, thanks for sharing. But I would say that two potential issues here are: 1) 'morality principles' are inherently very vague and would vary widely across different judges, extrajudicial jurists, commercial cultures, and everyday cultural contexts. And 2) Importing strong concepts from one legal system, derived from civil law and evolved over hundreds of years within particular socio-cultural-political contexts, to another, derived from common law and evolved over hundreds of years within different socio-cultural-political contexts, might not be a good fit and could potentially even be harmful.
There's also a big secondary question that still brightly stands no matter what someone's opinion on these matters is, and that question regards centralization. After having bubbled up inconsistently for decades, at some point in the mid or late 1970s, the USA began to take leaps toward both private sector and public sector central planning and did so in multiple contexts. One of those contexts, as it plays out on the public sector side (also on the private sector side, but that's in some big ways a different beast), is that a whole lot of the spectrum, including most of its most impactful parts, of regulatory decision-making and action design are very centralized with, depending on the area, little to no variation. In a vast country with both large amounts of social heterogeneity and large amounts of economic heterogeneity, such acute centralization is counterproductive for most people and, over the longer term, almost all people.
Interesting and informative essay! I never knew about Eduardo García de Enterría, thanks for sharing. But I would say that two potential issues here are: 1) 'morality principles' are inherently very vague and would vary widely across different judges, extrajudicial jurists, commercial cultures, and everyday cultural contexts. And 2) Importing strong concepts from one legal system, derived from civil law and evolved over hundreds of years within particular socio-cultural-political contexts, to another, derived from common law and evolved over hundreds of years within different socio-cultural-political contexts, might not be a good fit and could potentially even be harmful.
There's also a big secondary question that still brightly stands no matter what someone's opinion on these matters is, and that question regards centralization. After having bubbled up inconsistently for decades, at some point in the mid or late 1970s, the USA began to take leaps toward both private sector and public sector central planning and did so in multiple contexts. One of those contexts, as it plays out on the public sector side (also on the private sector side, but that's in some big ways a different beast), is that a whole lot of the spectrum, including most of its most impactful parts, of regulatory decision-making and action design are very centralized with, depending on the area, little to no variation. In a vast country with both large amounts of social heterogeneity and large amounts of economic heterogeneity, such acute centralization is counterproductive for most people and, over the longer term, almost all people.