I would like to interpret both Richard Stewart and Joel Handler as analyzing the problems of unreasonableness and alienation in welfare state bureaucracy. Unreasonableness is the absence of a sensible relationship between regulatory ends and means.' Perfectly sensible objectives of regulation often seem to be implemented in ways that are unnecessarily costly, indirect, wasteful, or just plain ridiculous. Alienation is the common feeling of being pushed around, manipulated, used, harassed, and burdened with paperwork and trivia. Surprisingly, unreasonableness and alienation seem to affect both the beneficiaries and targets of regulation. They affect regulated enterprises which are forced to install inefficient anti-pollution technology, fill out useless reports, and engage in expensive litigation. They also affect the clients and beneficiaries of the welfare state. Joel Handler's rights-bearing clients are powerless in the context of a continuing, discretionary, and dependent relationship with the bureaucracy. Equal employment law is another example, where the complainants seem to be able to get an unlimited supply of legal procedure to go with a highly restricted supply of employment. In my Comment, I would like to discuss two general questions raised by Handler and Stewart: where does the unreasonableness and alienation come from; what can we do about it?
