4 ms·

Only someone ~ completely unfamiliar with political science or law would contend that the problem with existing legal systems is that they're not mathematically

Only someone ~ completely unfamiliar with political science or law would contend that the problem with existing legal systems is that they're not mathematically specified in sufficient detail. Laws are written with intentional ambiguities to allow for flexibility in application. They are guidelines for the application of power that allow different parts of a government to coordinate, not "specifications" in any real sense. To the extent that they don't offer sufficient flexibility to allow courts, governments, etc. to act as they want, they're simply ignored.

MarkPNeyer 10y ago
How is that different from "the law is whatever a judge says it is?" Once you have some flexibility in a logical system, it's no longer a logical system. The way it seems to work at present, we have the worst aspects of a law in vernacular (not much clarity, hard to predict outcomes) as well as laws in a formal language (sometimes there's intense ridigity that leads to conclusions nobody wants, see: minimum sentencing laws, judges saying "my hands are tied")
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  It's not. Laws are not a "logical system", nor are they designed to be. Laws are a fuzzy coordination mechanism around the exercise of power. (If you have one actor in the power structure who "goes rogue" and has a wildly differing interpretation than the consensus, they tend to get smacked down sooner or later, but there is substantial slack both within the system and over time). When it serves the interests of the government, laws are in fact specified reasonably exactly (eg building codes), but they are subject to the same intentional lacunae (try enforcing a state building code on a federal building, vs a private building rented by a federal agency). These are all descriptive statements, not normative statements.
  - MarkPNeyer 10y ago
    This is an amazing answer and I like this on a number of levels. You've given me a number of things to think about. Thank you.
zardo 10y ago
As someone who works with regulations, it would certainly make my job a lot easier if the ambiguities were contained. Actually, it would mostly eliminate my job. Regulated entities could fill out which terms applied to them (and argue over them in court), but the logic that follows would be executable. As it is, everyone has to write their own expert systems to implement regulations, which is onerous for small players.

MarkPNeyer 10y ago

How is that different from "the law is whatever a judge says it is?" Once you have some flexibility in a logical system, it's no longer a logical system. The way it seems to work at present, we have the worst aspects of a law in vernacular (not much clarity, hard to predict outcomes) as well as laws in a formal language (sometimes there's intense ridigity that leads to conclusions nobody wants, see: minimum sentencing laws, judges saying "my hands are tied")

h4nkoslo 10y ago
It's not. Laws are not a "logical system", nor are they designed to be. Laws are a fuzzy coordination mechanism around the exercise of power. (If you have one actor in the power structure who "goes rogue" and has a wildly differing interpretation than the consensus, they tend to get smacked down sooner or later, but there is substantial slack both within the system and over time). When it serves the interests of the government, laws are in fact specified reasonably exactly (eg building codes), but they are subject to the same intentional lacunae (try enforcing a state building code on a federal building, vs a private building rented by a federal agency). These are all descriptive statements, not normative statements.
- MarkPNeyer 10y ago
  This is an amazing answer and I like this on a number of levels. You've given me a number of things to think about. Thank you.

zardo 10y ago

As someone who works with regulations, it would certainly make my job a lot easier if the ambiguities were contained. Actually, it would mostly eliminate my job. Regulated entities could fill out which terms applied to them (and argue over them in court), but the logic that follows would be executable. As it is, everyone has to write their own expert systems to implement regulations, which is onerous for small players.