5 ms·

Suggesting yet another rule to eliminate some undesired behavior makes me think you are running into a Gödel's incompleteness but in law. We should instead cut

Suggesting yet another rule to eliminate some undesired behavior makes me think you are running into a Gödel's incompleteness but in law. We should instead cut the Gordian Knot and try to resolve these issues in a different manner.

pc86 5y ago
This strikes me as the preamble to some "it's like law but oN thE BloCkChAiN" pitch, which ignores that law is designed to be interpreted by human beings, and by definition does not operate like code. Ask any lawyer preparing for a trial, they'll tell you that they have an idea how strong their case is but you really don't have any idea how it will turn out until the arguments are made. This is by design. Replacing the system wholesale is... an incredibly naïve solution, to say the least.
- petermcneeley 5y ago
  I am just arguing against the idea that yet one more rule will resolve a fundamental problem inherent to a legal system. You need something else. I think even Alexander Solzhenitsyn hints at these issues in his essay: https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-apart https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-apart
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    Solzhenitsyn never advocated for the law to end I really wish HN didn't have this tradition of fake references into academia, and recognized why citations have to be specific You are claiming that he said the exact opposite of what he actually said
    - petermcneeley 5y ago
      > "Western society has chosen for itself the organization best suited to its purposes and one I might call legalistic. The limits of human rights and rightness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting, and manipulating law (though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert). Every conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the ultimate solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint or a renunciation of these rights, call for sacrifice and selfless risk: This would simply sound absurd. Voluntary self-restraint is almost unheard of: Everybody strives toward further expansion to the extreme limit of the legal frames" I would emphasize that last sentence. I didnt even say that Solzhenitsyn advocates for my view I said he hints at these issues in this essay.
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        I don't know how you can possibly interpret that as a call to remove law as unfixable. That just says "neckbeards constantly test limits, Westerners are lawsuit happy because it lets them emotionally avoid compromise, and sometimes people should choose not to take everything to court when they could just be nice." I have the strong impression that you have never read this book and are trying to argue from a search engine Large parts of this book rail against what you're saying as villainy, and that it is oppressors who argue for the removal of the law in the faked hope of finding something better
        petermcneeley 5y ago
        This is not a book this is a speech (I dont even think this is excerpt from a book so I am not sure where this book idea is coming from) And yes he even in the next paragraph says that a lawless society is horrible. "I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed." I dont think he nor I think of it as "neckbeards constantly testing limits" but as the whole of society; specifically the area that matters here is corporations. I am not into Crypto blah blah solutions. I am simply arguing that yet another random specific law doesnt seem to fix the issue. Using legal mechanisms to solve these kind of issues is ineffective, inefficient, and inegalitarian.
        JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        > And yes he even in the next paragraph says that a lawless society is horrible. which is weird because he's being held up as support of removing the law in favor of (handwavey nothing) . > Using legal mechanisms to solve these kind of issues is ineffective, inefficient, and inegalitarian. No evidence supports these claims and no replacement is offered. Criticism without evidence or replacement is facile.
        petermcneeley 5y ago
        >which is weird because he's being held up as support of removing the law in favor of I never made this claim. The evidence is the subject of the original post itself. This is part of a thread. Click on parent... What a disappointing conversation.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
No "other manner" is here described, or has ever been described by humanity Making abusive behavior illegal isn't about numerical representation To cut the Gordian knot means to ignore the problem as irrelevant by discarding previous requirements. You seem to be suggesting that we should not require large corporations to get our consent before binding us to things I find that the heavy use of imagery can make falling backwards sound like progress But no, we shouldn't throw out the law just because a new scam emerged

pc86 5y ago

This strikes me as the preamble to some "it's like law but oN thE BloCkChAiN" pitch, which ignores that law is designed to be interpreted by human beings, and by definition does not operate like code. Ask any lawyer preparing for a trial, they'll tell you that they have an idea how strong their case is but you really don't have any idea how it will turn out until the arguments are made. This is by design. Replacing the system wholesale is... an incredibly naïve solution, to say the least.

petermcneeley 5y ago
I am just arguing against the idea that yet one more rule will resolve a fundamental problem inherent to a legal system. You need something else. I think even Alexander Solzhenitsyn hints at these issues in his essay: https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-apart https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-apart
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  Solzhenitsyn never advocated for the law to end I really wish HN didn't have this tradition of fake references into academia, and recognized why citations have to be specific You are claiming that he said the exact opposite of what he actually said
  - petermcneeley 5y ago
    > "Western society has chosen for itself the organization best suited to its purposes and one I might call legalistic. The limits of human rights and rightness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting, and manipulating law (though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert). Every conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the ultimate solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint or a renunciation of these rights, call for sacrifice and selfless risk: This would simply sound absurd. Voluntary self-restraint is almost unheard of: Everybody strives toward further expansion to the extreme limit of the legal frames" I would emphasize that last sentence. I didnt even say that Solzhenitsyn advocates for my view I said he hints at these issues in this essay.
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      I don't know how you can possibly interpret that as a call to remove law as unfixable. That just says "neckbeards constantly test limits, Westerners are lawsuit happy because it lets them emotionally avoid compromise, and sometimes people should choose not to take everything to court when they could just be nice." I have the strong impression that you have never read this book and are trying to argue from a search engine Large parts of this book rail against what you're saying as villainy, and that it is oppressors who argue for the removal of the law in the faked hope of finding something better
      - petermcneeley 5y ago
        This is not a book this is a speech (I dont even think this is excerpt from a book so I am not sure where this book idea is coming from) And yes he even in the next paragraph says that a lawless society is horrible. "I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed." I dont think he nor I think of it as "neckbeards constantly testing limits" but as the whole of society; specifically the area that matters here is corporations. I am not into Crypto blah blah solutions. I am simply arguing that yet another random specific law doesnt seem to fix the issue. Using legal mechanisms to solve these kind of issues is ineffective, inefficient, and inegalitarian.
        JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        > And yes he even in the next paragraph says that a lawless society is horrible. which is weird because he's being held up as support of removing the law in favor of (handwavey nothing) . > Using legal mechanisms to solve these kind of issues is ineffective, inefficient, and inegalitarian. No evidence supports these claims and no replacement is offered. Criticism without evidence or replacement is facile.
        petermcneeley 5y ago
        >which is weird because he's being held up as support of removing the law in favor of I never made this claim. The evidence is the subject of the original post itself. This is part of a thread. Click on parent... What a disappointing conversation.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

No "other manner" is here described, or has ever been described by humanity Making abusive behavior illegal isn't about numerical representation To cut the Gordian knot means to ignore the problem as irrelevant by discarding previous requirements. You seem to be suggesting that we should not require large corporations to get our consent before binding us to things I find that the heavy use of imagery can make falling backwards sound like progress But no, we shouldn't throw out the law just because a new scam emerged