3 ms·

I like to see legislation as similar to computer code, where the "computer" is society & the courts. There are a lot of parallels: the actual laws that are pas

I like to see legislation as similar to computer code, where the "computer" is society & the courts. There are a lot of parallels: the actual laws that are passed often look like diffs explained with words (insert this word here, remove this sentence, etc), every concept has to be explicitely defined, and you have to think of all the corner-cases otherwise you get unforeseen consequences, etc. Unfortunately, most bodies of law have amassed a huge amount of technical debt, and nobody seems interested in solving it. The fact that most legislators are actually terrible coders doesn't help at all either.

gerikson 7y ago
> Unfortunately, most bodies of law have amassed a huge amount of technical debt, and nobody seems interested in solving it. That's because law professionals make a very good living by dealing with the technical debt - a bit like the worst kinds of IT consultants.
jacques_chester 7y ago
This analogy is commonly drawn by programmers. Like many analogies it's imperfect. Law in the Common Law countries (the UK, US, Australia, Canada, NZ etc) has two main sources: case law and legislation. They are both the law. Case law derives its power from precedent, legislation from declaration. But they are both the law. Legislation read in isolation will not give you a correct understanding of the law. More specifically: > Unfortunately, most bodies of law have amassed a huge amount of technical debt, and nobody seems interested in solving it. Reform acts are passed all the time, often consolidating caselaw, or consolidating legislation, or both. Just as often there's a process of cleaning up the attic and finding old legislation that needs to be repealed. Where I studied law, the Law of Property Act 2000 (NT) included repeals for Acts going back as far as 1266[0]. But a legislature has limited bandwidth. Within this bandwidth there is a fat tail distribution of attention. Contentious issues frequently absorb legislative time and effort out of proportion to their size or complexity. This is not a matter of legislation-as-code, this is a matter of the economics of public choice and bargaining. > The fact that most legislators are actually terrible coders doesn't help at all either. Legislation is typically drafted by professional drafters working for the legislature. Some comes from "model acts" provided by lobbyists, these too drafted by professionals. Drafting legislation is as hard or harder than coding. There are no debugging tools, no test suites, everything is done live in production with potentially unlimited consequences. Those drafters work with immense care and often under absurd deadlines. [0] http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/lopa2000198/sch4.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/lopa200...
- mywittyname 7y ago
  The court system is the team that applies patches or updates the configuration for the Society OS.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    "Yes, but no", as analogies are. It varies according to the case. Whether courts create law or whether they merely discover law is a matter of serious scholarly debate. Patching or reconfiguring is closer to creation and legislatures jealously guard that privilege. Courts must apply the implications of existing laws applied to novel circumstances. Code can crash, but a court must always provide an answer, even if that answer is "you have wasted the court's time".
- emilecantin 7y ago
  > Drafting legislation is as hard or harder than coding. I agree, and it's mind-blowing to me that no effort is being made to improve that process and the tooling that goes around it. I recently read "You have to remain innocent" by James Duane (of "never talk to police fame"), and it's truly chilling how nobody can even tell what is or isn't a crime anymore. We really should improve this.
- carapace 7y ago
  Cheers, thank you for that. It's so crazy. And then you remember what it mitigates: war. Worth it, eh?
EvanAnderson 7y ago
I used to think about law that way. Then I became friends with a number of attorneys and a couple of judges. Talking to them made it abundantly clear that much codified law and judge-made law functions more as rough heuristics and less as "code". I've also heard the "technical debt" you're speaking of as being described as a feature, rather than a bug.
- emilecantin 7y ago
  Sure, it's an analogy, and analogies are always imperfect. It's true that the "computer" isn't a conventional computer at all, and behaves a lot differently. As a non-lawyer with a bit of interest in understanding the law, though, I'm strongly opposed to that technical debt. While it sure does keep the lawyers employed, it makes it _very_ hard for the lay citizen to understand what we can or cannot do.
  - erichocean 7y ago
    > it makes it _very_ hard for the lay citizen to understand what we can or cannot do That's a feature, not a bug.

gerikson 7y ago

> Unfortunately, most bodies of law have amassed a huge amount of technical debt, and nobody seems interested in solving it. That's because law professionals make a very good living by dealing with the technical debt - a bit like the worst kinds of IT consultants.

jacques_chester 7y ago

This analogy is commonly drawn by programmers. Like many analogies it's imperfect. Law in the Common Law countries (the UK, US, Australia, Canada, NZ etc) has two main sources: case law and legislation. They are both the law. Case law derives its power from precedent, legislation from declaration. But they are both the law. Legislation read in isolation will not give you a correct understanding of the law. More specifically: > Unfortunately, most bodies of law have amassed a huge amount of technical debt, and nobody seems interested in solving it. Reform acts are passed all the time, often consolidating caselaw, or consolidating legislation, or both. Just as often there's a process of cleaning up the attic and finding old legislation that needs to be repealed. Where I studied law, the Law of Property Act 2000 (NT) included repeals for Acts going back as far as 1266[0]. But a legislature has limited bandwidth. Within this bandwidth there is a fat tail distribution of attention. Contentious issues frequently absorb legislative time and effort out of proportion to their size or complexity. This is not a matter of legislation-as-code, this is a matter of the economics of public choice and bargaining. > The fact that most legislators are actually terrible coders doesn't help at all either. Legislation is typically drafted by professional drafters working for the legislature. Some comes from "model acts" provided by lobbyists, these too drafted by professionals. Drafting legislation is as hard or harder than coding. There are no debugging tools, no test suites, everything is done live in production with potentially unlimited consequences. Those drafters work with immense care and often under absurd deadlines. [0] http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/lopa2000198/sch4.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/lopa200...

mywittyname 7y ago
The court system is the team that applies patches or updates the configuration for the Society OS.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  "Yes, but no", as analogies are. It varies according to the case. Whether courts create law or whether they merely discover law is a matter of serious scholarly debate. Patching or reconfiguring is closer to creation and legislatures jealously guard that privilege. Courts must apply the implications of existing laws applied to novel circumstances. Code can crash, but a court must always provide an answer, even if that answer is "you have wasted the court's time".
emilecantin 7y ago
> Drafting legislation is as hard or harder than coding. I agree, and it's mind-blowing to me that no effort is being made to improve that process and the tooling that goes around it. I recently read "You have to remain innocent" by James Duane (of "never talk to police fame"), and it's truly chilling how nobody can even tell what is or isn't a crime anymore. We really should improve this.
carapace 7y ago
Cheers, thank you for that. It's so crazy. And then you remember what it mitigates: war. Worth it, eh?

EvanAnderson 7y ago

I used to think about law that way. Then I became friends with a number of attorneys and a couple of judges. Talking to them made it abundantly clear that much codified law and judge-made law functions more as rough heuristics and less as "code". I've also heard the "technical debt" you're speaking of as being described as a feature, rather than a bug.

emilecantin 7y ago
Sure, it's an analogy, and analogies are always imperfect. It's true that the "computer" isn't a conventional computer at all, and behaves a lot differently. As a non-lawyer with a bit of interest in understanding the law, though, I'm strongly opposed to that technical debt. While it sure does keep the lawyers employed, it makes it _very_ hard for the lay citizen to understand what we can or cannot do.
- erichocean 7y ago
  > it makes it _very_ hard for the lay citizen to understand what we can or cannot do That's a feature, not a bug.