4 ms·

Software systems are meant to be totally consistent, both for the sake of being able to execute deterministicly on dumb machines, and for reliable performance i

Software systems are meant to be totally consistent, both for the sake of being able to execute deterministicly on dumb machines, and for reliable performance in relatively static or funneled environments. Legal systems operate in constantly evolving environments and in thick, untransparent cases where the truth of the matter is typically unknown and needs are conflicting. You might be able to do this kind of thing in limited settings of organizational design or corporate policy – but you will not be able to completely replace federal law with software.

jka 7y ago
Even in evolving environments, it's important to have terminology that describes what is acceptable and what is not in clear terms. Writing precise language is hard, but ambiguity of language is worse, since it can lead to potentially unsafe interpretation. The Frankenstein Veto makes it possible for state Governors to alter the meaning 'near runtime' - certainly post-review - and accidentally or intentionally create loopholes which enable damaging outcomes.
- bordercases 7y ago
  But laws are already not written ambiguously. They may be written with technical jargon which may be too specific or euphemistic, but that's not quite the same thing. What you would be advocating for at that point might a common language for law that avoids euphemism and keeps the reading level at a certain level of complexity, but doing so also limits the richness of language that we can use to describe legal agreements in the first place. Furthermore any software system that could handle the Frankensetin Veto would have to be extremely competent in natural language and somehow do model checking on all the combinations of cases that natural language can cover. Not going to happen in polynomial time buddy. Not for all sorts of law anyway. The problem that the Frankenstein Veto case demonstrates doesn't necessarily have to be handled in software either. It's a problem with the workflow of law, not the systems implementation.
  - jka 7y ago
    I'm asking for simple language, accessible to a broad audience, which allows rules to be written so that most people applying them to a set of example situations would arrive at the same results. Beyond that, what I'm suggesting is that it could be helpful to gradually make it easier for the public to view, comment on, and search proposed and historic legislative changes. Collaboration, tracking down bugs and coaching/mentoring in open source software is greatly aided by tools like GitHub; it's worth having concerns about whether such a service itself should be proprietary, but I do think the value it creates is worth looking at. If something similar could be created for legal texts, I think it's possible that there could be similar benefits. There may be risks, too. My suggestion isn't that we should devise a software system to implement the rules of the Frankenstein Veto; instead my theory is that the time-to-detect and time-to-recover from a process problem like the Frankenstein Veto would both be shorter in the presence of an open, collaborative, transparent legislative repository.
walshemj 7y ago
No sorry legal /parliamentary systems do have to be consistent A parliamentary/ legal system cannot have a motion saying A and have the executive turn around exactly do B
- bordercases 7y ago
  Read "Myth of the Rule of Law" by John Hasnas, who is a professor of law at Georgetown. https://archive.org/stream/THEMYTHOFTHERULEOFLAWByJohnHasnas47/THE%20MYTH%20OF%20THE%20RULE%20OF%20LAW%20by%20John%20Hasnas-47_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/THEMYTHOFTHERULEOFLAWByJohnHasnas... It is the nature of law to be a negotiation among parties, with all of the properties of negotation that this implies – personal interests, wavering agreement. Believing that law can carry an objective authority disguises this reality and leaving the nature of law unacknowledged makes regulation of that system more difficult. You might argue that making law more formal or explicit can help here, but laws are already very formal and explicit, and being formal and explicit doesn't guarantee total consistency, maybe paraconsistency at best unless you're dealing with logics much less rich than those we can embed in natural language.
  - walshemj 7y ago
    How does this apply to parliamentary procedure? my argument is you cant once a law has been agreed and suddenly say oh no I am going to rewrite the law on my personal say so.
    - bordercases 7y ago
      You can come up with multiple conflicting interpretations during a case that are only resolved through further qualification and cases. This is a part of procedure as much as "personal say so" is not.

jka 7y ago

Even in evolving environments, it's important to have terminology that describes what is acceptable and what is not in clear terms. Writing precise language is hard, but ambiguity of language is worse, since it can lead to potentially unsafe interpretation. The Frankenstein Veto makes it possible for state Governors to alter the meaning 'near runtime' - certainly post-review - and accidentally or intentionally create loopholes which enable damaging outcomes.

bordercases 7y ago
But laws are already not written ambiguously. They may be written with technical jargon which may be too specific or euphemistic, but that's not quite the same thing. What you would be advocating for at that point might a common language for law that avoids euphemism and keeps the reading level at a certain level of complexity, but doing so also limits the richness of language that we can use to describe legal agreements in the first place. Furthermore any software system that could handle the Frankensetin Veto would have to be extremely competent in natural language and somehow do model checking on all the combinations of cases that natural language can cover. Not going to happen in polynomial time buddy. Not for all sorts of law anyway. The problem that the Frankenstein Veto case demonstrates doesn't necessarily have to be handled in software either. It's a problem with the workflow of law, not the systems implementation.
- jka 7y ago
  I'm asking for simple language, accessible to a broad audience, which allows rules to be written so that most people applying them to a set of example situations would arrive at the same results. Beyond that, what I'm suggesting is that it could be helpful to gradually make it easier for the public to view, comment on, and search proposed and historic legislative changes. Collaboration, tracking down bugs and coaching/mentoring in open source software is greatly aided by tools like GitHub; it's worth having concerns about whether such a service itself should be proprietary, but I do think the value it creates is worth looking at. If something similar could be created for legal texts, I think it's possible that there could be similar benefits. There may be risks, too. My suggestion isn't that we should devise a software system to implement the rules of the Frankenstein Veto; instead my theory is that the time-to-detect and time-to-recover from a process problem like the Frankenstein Veto would both be shorter in the presence of an open, collaborative, transparent legislative repository.

walshemj 7y ago

No sorry legal /parliamentary systems do have to be consistent A parliamentary/ legal system cannot have a motion saying A and have the executive turn around exactly do B

bordercases 7y ago
Read "Myth of the Rule of Law" by John Hasnas, who is a professor of law at Georgetown. https://archive.org/stream/THEMYTHOFTHERULEOFLAWByJohnHasnas47/THE%20MYTH%20OF%20THE%20RULE%20OF%20LAW%20by%20John%20Hasnas-47_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/THEMYTHOFTHERULEOFLAWByJohnHasnas... It is the nature of law to be a negotiation among parties, with all of the properties of negotation that this implies – personal interests, wavering agreement. Believing that law can carry an objective authority disguises this reality and leaving the nature of law unacknowledged makes regulation of that system more difficult. You might argue that making law more formal or explicit can help here, but laws are already very formal and explicit, and being formal and explicit doesn't guarantee total consistency, maybe paraconsistency at best unless you're dealing with logics much less rich than those we can embed in natural language.
- walshemj 7y ago
  How does this apply to parliamentary procedure? my argument is you cant once a law has been agreed and suddenly say oh no I am going to rewrite the law on my personal say so.
  - bordercases 7y ago
    You can come up with multiple conflicting interpretations during a case that are only resolved through further qualification and cases. This is a part of procedure as much as "personal say so" is not.