"Well, daddy, don't you know that things go in cycles..." Every once in a while, we come up with a new generalization that cuts through the complexity of curre

"Well, daddy, don't you know that things go in cycles..." Every once in a while, we come up with a new generalization that cuts through the complexity of current, seemingly intractable problems. With time, they break down, succumb to exceptions, or lead to blind alleys. Consider "privacy", which is very new from a legal point of view, but no longer has quite the same new-rule smell. Compare "consideration" (for contracts), which has functioned a good long while, but isn't applied universally, and might be breaking down. It's a kind of technology. Best case, our advances keep pace with our needs. But the _pursuit_ of universality, as a principle for rulemaking, has lasted a good long while. The further we get from the incisive "moment of truth" for a rule, the less "just" it feels in application. The more the exceptions and uncertainties, the more we suspect corruption and discrimination. In other words: The more a rule shows its age, the more those who do not (and, practically, cannot) understand its subtleties perceive it as arbitrary. It's a somewhat indulgent, idealistic line of thought. But it gives me hope. Thought I'd share.