3 ms·

Making simple laws by simply ignoring the complexity of the real world won't solve people's actual problems.

by harryh 11y ago

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
It isn't the role of the courts to micromanage people. Judges are not marriage counselors. Civil courts are primarily tasked with deciding the most just disposition of assets. But the most just disposition of assets is not giving them to the lawyers. To have a just outcome the amount spent on resolving the dispute has to be much smaller than the amount in controversy. If the law doesn't do that then it would be more just to flip a coin or split the difference. But splitting the difference isn't "right" either, it's only better than the "very wrong" we have in many cases now. You can get closer than that to the ideal outcome of perfect dispute resolution at zero cost. There are rules that produce significantly-better-than-random outcomes at low cost, and those are the ones the law should use, even if the decisions are somewhat less optimal than the ones that come at unjustifiably high cost.
- harryh 11y ago
  I reject your assertion that the legal process is sucking up too large a percentage of the disputed assets in question. In general legal fees and court costs are a relatively small percentage of the disputed value.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    Nobody is complaining about those cases. The vast majority of disputes never even make it inside a courtroom because many laws are clear and simple. If you have a good law then nobody ever talks about it, or needs to. What people want to change are the areas where the law is a mess. Divorce, patent litigation, etc. Laws that criminalize innocuous behavior and allow prosecutors to overcharge defendants at whim. And a common characteristic with these messes is that spending a lot of money on lawyers will significantly improve outcomes, so that people who can, have to -- or they get screwed. Which is what happens to the people who can't.

Making simple laws by simply ignoring the complexity of the real world won't solve people's actual problems.

by harryh 11y ago

Making simple laws by simply ignoring the complexity of the real world won't solve people's actual problems.

It isn't the role of the courts to micromanage people. Judges are not marriage counselors. Civil courts are primarily tasked with deciding the most just disposition of assets. But the most just disposition of assets is not giving them to the lawyers. To have a just outcome the amount spent on resolving the dispute has to be much smaller than the amount in controversy. If the law doesn't do that then it would be more just to flip a coin or split the difference. But splitting the difference isn't "right" either, it's only better than the "very wrong" we have in many cases now. You can get closer than that to the ideal outcome of perfect dispute resolution at zero cost. There are rules that produce significantly-better-than-random outcomes at low cost, and those are the ones the law should use, even if the decisions are somewhat less optimal than the ones that come at unjustifiably high cost.

harryh 11y ago
I reject your assertion that the legal process is sucking up too large a percentage of the disputed assets in question. In general legal fees and court costs are a relatively small percentage of the disputed value.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  Nobody is complaining about those cases. The vast majority of disputes never even make it inside a courtroom because many laws are clear and simple. If you have a good law then nobody ever talks about it, or needs to. What people want to change are the areas where the law is a mess. Divorce, patent litigation, etc. Laws that criminalize innocuous behavior and allow prosecutors to overcharge defendants at whim. And a common characteristic with these messes is that spending a lot of money on lawyers will significantly improve outcomes, so that people who can, have to -- or they get screwed. Which is what happens to the people who can't.