3 ms·

Laws are imo somewhere between code and natural language, and imo closer to the code end of the spectrum. If you go full “natural language” approach that’s ope

Laws are imo somewhere between code and natural language, and imo closer to the code end of the spectrum. If you go full “natural language” approach that’s open to whatever interpretation, that’s how you get kingdoms and dictatorships. Everything seems cool and all with the “natural language” approach to a legal system, up until the point the person in power decides to arbitrarily use it against the interests of the people they are governing. This is pretty much why laws in countries with at least somewhat functional legal systems tend to be treated more like pieces of code rather than whatever someone thinks things should vaguely and generally. The culture of “rules lawyering” is imo the best we can do if we want the legal system to treat everyone equally and impartially. Do you think that all the people involved in legal systems over thousands of years were just not enlightened enough to ever consider “why do we have all those ultra specific and codified laws, let’s just issue a list of general things like ‘don’t harm other people’ and ‘respect property of other people’ that would cover pretty much any undesirable behavior, and then call it a day?”. If anything, legal systems became more “rules lawyered” and more similar to code over time, precisely because the world has been moving in the direction of more fairness and equality. I mean, not that long ago at all, we had some of the most advanced nation-states being ruled by a single king/queen/emperor/etc. And their word was not only a de-facto “absolute definition of the law”, but also de-jure (as opposed to some contemporary modern nation-states, like DRPK or Russia, that where laws technically exist on paper, but de-facto their codified definition doesn’t matter much at all,).

avar 3y ago
Some dictatorships are doing stricter rules lawyering than any democracy, the "issue" being that there's an unambiguous rule somewhere that the King is sovereign without limits on their power. I think you have this backwards.
- filoleg 3y ago
  No, I don’t think I do. Mostly because while dictatorships might have “strict laws”, they are typically left as vague and generally-applicable as possible, precisely so that they can be used in whichever way the dictator wants. Also, those “laws” don’t matter anyway in a dictatorship, and “rules lawyering” we are talking about here wouldn’t apply there. More specifically, “rules lawyering” isn’t a thing in a dictatorship, just like they are not a thing in a kingdom[0]. Do you think someone would be able to lawyer up and win a case by finding a loophole in the laws, against someone in a dictatorship? I strongly doubt it. Dictatorships are imo just kingdoms, but with the ruler not “chosen by divine powers” or having to be a descendant of the previous dictator in power, and with the whole pretense theater of a legal system that only “matters” until someone in power doesn’t get involved (and then it becomes purely about who has the higher rank within that structure of dicratorship). It is basically the same, but at least old school kingdoms (unlike dictatorships) weren’t acting pretense about it and often plainly and openly just went “yeah, i am a king, who is a descendant of that one king who was chosen by some divine powers, legally i can do whatever i want, and i will be in the right.” 0. Talking about an old type of a kingdom, not talking about something like modern day Kingdom of Sweden (which is still the current official name of the country).

avar 3y ago

Some dictatorships are doing stricter rules lawyering than any democracy, the "issue" being that there's an unambiguous rule somewhere that the King is sovereign without limits on their power. I think you have this backwards.

filoleg 3y ago
No, I don’t think I do. Mostly because while dictatorships might have “strict laws”, they are typically left as vague and generally-applicable as possible, precisely so that they can be used in whichever way the dictator wants. Also, those “laws” don’t matter anyway in a dictatorship, and “rules lawyering” we are talking about here wouldn’t apply there. More specifically, “rules lawyering” isn’t a thing in a dictatorship, just like they are not a thing in a kingdom[0]. Do you think someone would be able to lawyer up and win a case by finding a loophole in the laws, against someone in a dictatorship? I strongly doubt it. Dictatorships are imo just kingdoms, but with the ruler not “chosen by divine powers” or having to be a descendant of the previous dictator in power, and with the whole pretense theater of a legal system that only “matters” until someone in power doesn’t get involved (and then it becomes purely about who has the higher rank within that structure of dicratorship). It is basically the same, but at least old school kingdoms (unlike dictatorships) weren’t acting pretense about it and often plainly and openly just went “yeah, i am a king, who is a descendant of that one king who was chosen by some divine powers, legally i can do whatever i want, and i will be in the right.” 0. Talking about an old type of a kingdom, not talking about something like modern day Kingdom of Sweden (which is still the current official name of the country).