What other options are there? Is there a middle ground between mob rule and anarchy? Should society be more or less tolerant of potentially offensive content or actions when the feelings of a few people can sway an entire policy?
I think the method described in the podcast is pretty close to a hypothetical ideal.
At a certain point the goal should be that the principled rules should be enforceable by a computer intelligence (approaching 90%+ accuracy and automatic enforcement).
Enforcement and corrective action (justice) should be blind (not subject to opinion or "officer discretion").
If a rule (or specific punishment) is disputed, like with the example of nursing mothers (in the podcast), there should be a formal process to determine actual consensus, otherwise we will be subject to the whims of the Tyranny of the Thin Skinned.
The rule making and enforcement mechanism should be impervious to (insulated from) executive decisions and public protests.
The rule making process should have the goal of making as few rules as necessary with as few exceptions as possible and based on easy to understand principles with the express purpose of being durable over long periods of time.
For example, legislators routinely pass unconstitutional laws (bans on flag burning and restrictions on abortion services) that they know will be struck down in the courts (because they already have been struck down numerous times) but they waste their own time and the time of the courts (and millions upon millions of dollars) because they consider it politically savvy and there are zero repercussions for them (there is currently no legal penalty for passing unconstitutional laws).
