3 ms·

So according to this Law 1.0 just made and enforced rules like "don't murder people" and "don't steal" and Law 2.0 tries to achieve purposes? Isn't stopping pe

So according to this Law 1.0 just made and enforced rules like "don't murder people" and "don't steal" and Law 2.0 tries to achieve purposes? Isn't stopping people from murdering, and stealing from, each other a purpose? A scary "statist" purpose of building something like the beginning of modern civilization even?

walterbell 3y ago
Law 1.0 > being able to approach a set of facts concerning a dispute, and apply legal rules to determine the likely legal outcome ... to order the conduct of otherwise free citizens. Law 2.0 > Legislatures ... delegate power to administrative agencies or technical experts ... to make ad hoc, flexible rulings; issue guidance and recommendations; publish codes of conduct; give and revoke licenses; and so on as and when they see fit - often with a very wide discretion. Law 3.0 > Making it impossible not to comply, through the deployment of technology. And in its way, this is the worst affront to the dignity of man out of them all, because it destroys the very conditions of moral agency. I reiterate: if one does not have the freedom to choose, because one is compelled to act morally, then one’s moral conduct is not really moral at all. The Energy Bill 2023 is therefore not only bad law because it is unclear, because it mostly delegates authority to make ad hoc decisions rather than rules, and so on. It is bad law because it seeks to automate compliance.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> Isn't stopping people from murdering, and stealing from, each other a purpose? I think TFA is trying to say that Law 2.0 doesn't say "Don't steal", it says instead that "The minister or an agency designated by the minister, which may be a company, shall promulgate regulations to protect property rights." And Law 3.0 says "The Agency shall cause automatic money transfers from thieves to victims to occur, to compensate victims of theft." I deplore Law 2.0-type legislation; TFA notes that secondary legislation is subject to review by the House of Lords, but the fact is that this will be in committee; committees don't get a lot of media attention, and nothing that happens in the Lords gets much media attention. Basically, secondary legislation isn't really subject to public scrutiny, in the sense of press campaigns and proper debates, in and out of Parliament. Also, primary legislation that provides for secondary legislation is an abstraction; it doesn't say what the law is going to be. You can read the primary legislation all through, and yet have no clue what it means, because it means nothing until the secondary legislation is implemented. Law 2.0 also allows bills to be really badly-drafted, because the meat is all in the secondary legislation. "Let's just get it passed - ministers can fix it later, if it turns out to be a PoS." TFA notes the length of this bill - 427 pages. Even ministers don't read bills that long; MPs certainly don't, at least most of them don't. My view is that you can't hold someone to a law that they can't reasonably be expected to know. That means that the law must be clear and explicit. If it can't be expressed concisely, then it isn't clear. All supporting documentation (e.g. industry regulations) must be equally clear and explicit, and free for anyone to read (so no incorporation by reference of industry standards that cost £1500 for a single printed copy).

walterbell 3y ago

Law 1.0 > being able to approach a set of facts concerning a dispute, and apply legal rules to determine the likely legal outcome ... to order the conduct of otherwise free citizens. Law 2.0 > Legislatures ... delegate power to administrative agencies or technical experts ... to make ad hoc, flexible rulings; issue guidance and recommendations; publish codes of conduct; give and revoke licenses; and so on as and when they see fit - often with a very wide discretion. Law 3.0 > Making it impossible not to comply, through the deployment of technology. And in its way, this is the worst affront to the dignity of man out of them all, because it destroys the very conditions of moral agency. I reiterate: if one does not have the freedom to choose, because one is compelled to act morally, then one’s moral conduct is not really moral at all. The Energy Bill 2023 is therefore not only bad law because it is unclear, because it mostly delegates authority to make ad hoc decisions rather than rules, and so on. It is bad law because it seeks to automate compliance.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> Isn't stopping people from murdering, and stealing from, each other a purpose? I think TFA is trying to say that Law 2.0 doesn't say "Don't steal", it says instead that "The minister or an agency designated by the minister, which may be a company, shall promulgate regulations to protect property rights." And Law 3.0 says "The Agency shall cause automatic money transfers from thieves to victims to occur, to compensate victims of theft." I deplore Law 2.0-type legislation; TFA notes that secondary legislation is subject to review by the House of Lords, but the fact is that this will be in committee; committees don't get a lot of media attention, and nothing that happens in the Lords gets much media attention. Basically, secondary legislation isn't really subject to public scrutiny, in the sense of press campaigns and proper debates, in and out of Parliament. Also, primary legislation that provides for secondary legislation is an abstraction; it doesn't say what the law is going to be. You can read the primary legislation all through, and yet have no clue what it means, because it means nothing until the secondary legislation is implemented. Law 2.0 also allows bills to be really badly-drafted, because the meat is all in the secondary legislation. "Let's just get it passed - ministers can fix it later, if it turns out to be a PoS." TFA notes the length of this bill - 427 pages. Even ministers don't read bills that long; MPs certainly don't, at least most of them don't. My view is that you can't hold someone to a law that they can't reasonably be expected to know. That means that the law must be clear and explicit. If it can't be expressed concisely, then it isn't clear. All supporting documentation (e.g. industry regulations) must be equally clear and explicit, and free for anyone to read (so no incorporation by reference of industry standards that cost £1500 for a single printed copy).