[Fwd: Re: Laws and the law]

[Paul Prescod]

Jeff Bone wrote:
> 
> > > There is nothing that a programming language designer can
> > > do to ensure simple programs
> >
> > 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.  

WTF? If I say that you can't stop a speeding bullet with just your index
finger, your intent is irrelevant. You *can't do it*. Similarly, a
programming language designer CANNOT create a (useful) language such
that all programs in that language are simple. Anyhow, you've now said
that this isn't really your goal with respect to contract law so this is
just a diversion. We agree that contracts may get complicated but you
think that's fine as long as they are voluntary.

>...
> > 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.

You quote Aristotle but you seem not to agree with him on this issue. I
don't claim to be an expert on Aristotilian ethics but Google reports:

"In every matter they deal with, the laws aim either at the common
benefit of all, or at the benefit of those in control, whose control
rests on virtue or on some other such basis. And so in one way what we
call just is whatever produces and maintains happiness and its parts for
a political community."

"Besides this, the law enjoins brave conduct, and temperate conduct, and
patient conduct. Similarly with all other forms of goodness and
wickedness, the law commands some kinds of behaviour and forbids others;
rightly if the law is rightly enacted, but not so well if it is an
improvised measure."

"This form of justice, then, is complete virtue; virtue, however, not
unqualified but in relation to somebody else. And therefore justice is
often thought to be the greatest of virtues. It is complete virtue in
the fullest sense, because it is the actual exercise of complete virtue"

"And how the meanings of 'just' and 'unjust' which answer to these are
to be distinguished is evident; for practically the majority of the acts
commanded by the law are those which are prescribed from the point of
view of virtue taken as a whole; for the law bids us practice every
virtue and forbids us to practice any vice."

He seems to go much farther in appointing government the moral guardian
than I would!

> > 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.

Why? Most of us do not WANT minimum mutual interference. We feel that a
certain amount of "interference" is the basis of citizenship. We want
the government to "interfere" negatively with polluters and collectors
of weapons of mass destruction and positively with those who cannot
afford emergency healthcare. 

Most people believe the government is that body which pursues the
"common good" as defined by the ruled populace. It is not the oil that
keeps the gears rolling but the expression of our common wishes. If we
wish only for "gear oil" then that's what the government should provide.
If we wish for socialized services then that's what the government
should provide. If we wish for something evil...well, most massively
evil acts are prohibited by our various constitutions which can only be
amended with great effort.

If you disagree with the majority of us then you have two options:
violently overthrowing the activist governments we have erected or
convince us to vote them out. If you want to convince us to vote them
out then I would strongly suggest you demonstrate to us that our lives
will be better under the system you propose than under the current one.
I personally have no interest in arguments from first principles because
I have no reason to believe that we can find first principles that will
appeal to all of us.

> ...
> The roads should be privatized.

If you can demonstrate that that will make my life better then I'll vote
with you. If you "derive" that conclusion from a first principle like
"taxation is theft" then I won't.

 Paul Prescod