[Fwd: Laws and the law]

[Jeff Bone]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5CF446DE70C2139181270C69
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Woops...  given that Paul's warming up a reply, we should re-list
this...

--------------5CF446DE70C2139181270C69
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <3C04285E.3EEE3A01@jump.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:57:18 -0600
From: Jeff Bone <jbone@jump.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony}  (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Subject: Re: Laws and the law
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10111271224180.695-100000@inetarena.com> <3C03F7A7.C3461186@jump.net> <3C03FE2B.574CBB2D@prescod.net> <3C040BA5.4ECDD3F@jump.net> <3C04141B.68733CED@prescod.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Paul Prescod wrote:

> Jeff Bone wrote:
> >
> > > My argument is that the former should be minimal,
> > consistent, and mostly metalaw applying to the construction and execution of the
> > latter.  And it should be relatively static;  most dynamic law should be confined in
> > contracts.
>
> I'm still waiting for the argument...that sounds more like an assertion!

Yeah, you're right.  Sorry, but I've been about 98% engaged in this nasty patent chase for
the last two days, my argument here probably...  isn't.

> > That is, the "simplicity" of interest is in the code size measure of
> > complexity.  The desired simplicity is simplicity (minimality, given equivalent
> > expressivity) of results.
>
> If you say so. I can't imagine what this would look like in law but it
> certainly sounds good. It also sounds orthogonal to the issue of how
> many mandatory laws there are.

Not at all --- that's the point.  Given a certain average size of one of these mandatory
laws, fewer laws will result in less legal bulk overall.  It's not orthogonal, it's
dependent.

> You could simplify and regularize
> contract law without doing away with public education and the mandatory
> taxes that support it (as a random example).

Again, my goal is not to simplify and regularize contract law --- each contract is like
it's own little body of law, and it can be as simple or complicated as its parties desire
--- but rather simplify and regularize (and eliminate as much as possible of!) the
mandatory, currently voluminous and inconsistent law spewed forth from legislative
entities.

> > > There is nothing that a programming language designer can
> > > do to ensure simple programs
> >
> > This is mostly false.
>
> It is boolean statement and thus either true or false. As written, it is
> true.

Fuzzy logic.  ;-)  Seriously, your statement isn't a boolean statement;  it is ambiguous
-wrt- whether you are discussing the intent of the designer or the absolute result of his
efforts in that regard.  The IMO more important interpretation --- intent of the designer
rather than universal result --- is false, while only by selecting the more narrow
interpretation is your statement true.  Hence, "mostly false."

> Why only these four things? Why exclude (for example) "protective of the
> poor and the disabled"

Because the law isn't a moral arbiter, it's a framework of interaction.  It's not your
mommy, it's not your conscience, it's a framework for human interaction.

> or "according to the will of the majority"

Let's not get started with tyranny of the majority;  let's just postulate a law that
allows maximum individual liberty while encouraging minimum mutual interference.

> or
> "protective of the environment" or "ensuring Islamic morality" or
> whatever. I find your three of your four choices singularly uninspiring.

Of course.  Why should the law inspire?  THE LAW IS REASON FREE FROM PASSION.  Inspiration
is not its function.

> Furthermore, there is all kinds of wiggle room for socialists in
> "maximal in assurance of liberty." After all a person who can't afford a
> wheelchair is hardly free to travel much!

There is a very clear difference between opportunity and entitlement.

> Voluntary only in the sense that breathing is voluntary. Try getting
> through life without reading and signing dozens of contracts.

Each and every one is entered voluntarily, subject to negotiation, and generally with many
alternatives available.  VERY different from the "live in the US, love our laws or leave"
model.

> I see
> anything the government does to standardize those through regulations to
> be a public service analogous to paving the roads.

Of course you would.

The roads should be privatized.

jb



--------------5CF446DE70C2139181270C69--