The law is there on the books and I can go to the library and look it up. The judges are bound to apply the law as it is written. Thus, I can make rational, reasoned decisions based on what are rational expectations of the workings of the judicial system.
In your world, however, all of that goes away and we are replaced with a system of “good reason.” One cannot possibly be expected to make rational, reasoned decision when he has no expectation of the consequences whatsoever. It is plain bad policy, and I note that even you are having trouble defending it.
I have no problem defending it. It is a modern version of virtue ethics and my arguments are basically Aristotelian. Perhaps you do not fully understand my responses. To you it probably sounds like I am saying that the only way you can fix your computer is to use good reason and judgment. Your problem, and you don't see it, is that you have a twisted definition of justice and the rule of law. Neither of which is your computer. See #96.
If you can defend it, answer my one question:
In the absence of predictability, how is one to engage in a pattern of rational decision making?