3 ms·

I almost didn't bother to read this because it sure as hell looks like a crackpot tract, but I found a gem of a tl;dr in the third section: Because the legal w

by hugh3 16y ago

I almost didn't bother to read this because it sure as hell looks like a crackpot tract, but I found a gem of a tl;dr in the third section: Because the legal world is comprised of contradictory rules, there will be sound legal arguments available not only for the hypothesis one is investigating, but for other, competing hypotheses as well. The assumption that there is a unique, correct resolution, which serves so well in empirical investigations, leads one astray when dealing with legal matters. which I think is an interesting perspective on legal matters. Contradictory assumptions mean that there's usually a bunch of different "right" answers, and which one you get is kindof a matter of luck of the draw. On the other hand, I guess the whole point of precedent is to slowly whittle down the space of possible answers. If the law can't always be right, it can at least try to be consistent.

AndyKelley 16y ago
It sounds like you skimmed half the article and then formed an incomplete opinion based on what you think the article was probably about. Just read it! The author goes into great detail with good examples about what you're talking about.
- hugh3 16y ago
  After that point I decided it really was too long and didn't read it. I skimmed the rest, it seems to get a bit silly and suggests we should have different legal systems for different people. He then goes into an extremely extended analogy about how having one legal system for everybody is just like having one shoe size for everybody, which seems like a fairly flawed analogy. I just skimmed it again in a bit more depth, and in the end he really doesn't seem to come up with any ideas about what it would actually mean to "end the monopoly" of the single legal system which currently prevails, and certainly not with any ideas about how to overcome the huge inherent problems which you'd get if you implemented something like that (the most obvious one being that if my legal system says I'm right and yours says you're right then we're legally screwed).
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

by hugh3 16y ago

AndyKelley 16y ago

It sounds like you skimmed half the article and then formed an incomplete opinion based on what you think the article was probably about. Just read it! The author goes into great detail with good examples about what you're talking about.

hugh3 16y ago
After that point I decided it really was too long and didn't read it. I skimmed the rest, it seems to get a bit silly and suggests we should have different legal systems for different people. He then goes into an extremely extended analogy about how having one legal system for everybody is just like having one shoe size for everybody, which seems like a fairly flawed analogy. I just skimmed it again in a bit more depth, and in the end he really doesn't seem to come up with any ideas about what it would actually mean to "end the monopoly" of the single legal system which currently prevails, and certainly not with any ideas about how to overcome the huge inherent problems which you'd get if you implemented something like that (the most obvious one being that if my legal system says I'm right and yours says you're right then we're legally screwed).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]