4 ms·
I assume the reason they don't do this is that the important and contentious parts of that assertion would be: What do you mean by "anyone"? What does "sale" m
by burkaman 11y ago
I assume the reason they don't do this is that the important and contentious parts of that assertion would be:
What do you mean by "anyone"?
What does "sale" mean?
How do you define "illegitimately labelled"?
etc.
And before you know it you're writing your own legalese to cover every possible question.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mbrock 11y agoI'm certain the powers who come up with these treaties don't care about formalization; they have lawyer armies already. A formal definition created by some "objective" third party would make it clear which concepts are axiomatic. If "sale" is an axiom, there is no further explanation except perhaps a link to a legal dictionary (or whatever). But maybe it can be clarified with explicit relationships. This would all amount to another kind of legalese: a formal one based on explicit logic. It won't solve the inherent messiness of law, but it might clarify some things.
- rquantz 11y agoOr worse, they start running the law on a computer. Instead of human interpreters, they'll just run their models and say, oh, the computer says you're guilty.
- Retra 11y agoYou don't make the computer output "guilty." You make it show you a likeliness of violation and a history of enforcements along with the relevance mitigating factors.
- rquantz 11y agoBut that doesn't sound as good as a dystopian science fiction story :)
- digikata 11y agoAs long as we can hire our own advocate/model to provide a defensive analysis, we might be ok...