4 ms·

I was unclear. I am not alarmed by the data being available. In fact, I also mentioned that it's already mostly available. I am concerned with the idea that we

I was unclear. I am not alarmed by the data being available. In fact, I also mentioned that it's already mostly available. I am concerned with the idea that we need to pay close attention to the process. > The idea that one must hire a lawyer just to be made aware of what the law is or is going to be ... is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say. Having the text of the law available will not help that. As others have pointed out, the meaning of the law is very different from its text, and that's what you pay lawyers to explain to you. It's a pleasant fantasy that the world is simple, but it's a fantasy nonetheless, and it will always be one in a large nation. The only comfort we have is that, by and large, while we only know a tiny fraction of the laws we live under, it is only a little smaller than the fraction that affects our actions. > This is exactly the kind of tool that will allow me to quickly determine where to place my vote. No, it isn't, unless you're a lawyer or a legislator yourself. Understanding law is an expertise, not a casual hobby. I cannot emphasize this enough. If you disagree with this, there is little more to say. And if you think it should be different, again, I think it isn't possible, and I believe that a few days talking with any lawyer about whatever your favorite topic is will show you otherwise. And so, if you instead rely on reading the US Code directly and making judgement based on your understanding of it, you'll be making gross mistakes, because you won't take into account Supreme Court rulings that will affect the interpretation, other, non-obvious parts of the US Code that directly bear on how certain passages must be read, and an endless number of arcana that make a real difference. But you'll still think yourself qualified, and you'll vote based on that. Except you won't have read all the changes made every year, because how could you, so you'll really vote based on the subset a few people told you to focus on. This is the irony: a seemingly useful thing, the availability of ALL THE INFORMATION, becomes a tool for shaping whatever narrative the people we trust want to shape (and I don't mean "want" in a malicious way). But because they will have the information at their fingertips, we'll assume that they have properly analyzed it, and pass judgements based on theirs, thinking we are basing them on facts.. > Who am I supposed to vote for? The guy with the nice hair? I inverted these two because this answer is the critical one. You are supposed to try and meet your representative. You are supposed to talk to her, and listen to her, not as a politician, but as a person you are entrusting with an important job. That means pretty much ignoring the stump speech, and instead talking to her or her staff, seeing where they are coming from, and approaching to learn, not to judge. It's hard work. It's way harder than grep-ing for keywords in the repository, or look at the commit history of a particular passage we dislike. But that's where responsibility starts. Not with being hypercritical of every little thing, as we developers are so good at being.

maratd 14y ago
> Understanding law is an expertise, not a casual hobby. Wow. This is patently offensive. My responsibility as a citizen is to understand the law and comply with it. In fact, that's the only responsibility I have as a citizen. That's what it means to be civil. To be civilized. To live under a body of laws. If you don't understand them, you can't follow them ... how can you call yourself civilized? If our laws are so complex that they can't be grasped by any layman, then we have two choices. 1. Eliminate the laws and render the system simple enough to grasp. 2. Create tools that allow us to grasp them. Now, I prefer #1, but willing to settle for #2. You seem to reject both? Anyway, this is the beginning of an open-source system that's already available in proprietary form in some fashion. If you think lawyers understand the law, well, you're a bit naive. They just use LexisNexis. Which provides laws, cases, rulings, opinions, etc. etc. > you won't take into account Supreme Court rulings that will affect the interpretation Please read some of the other comments. The author gets this. And this is just Version 1.0, right? That's like saying a baby is useless because it can't hold on to a job. Well, yeah. If you kill the baby, it never will. > You are supposed to try and meet your representative. You are supposed to talk to her, and listen to her, not as a politician, but as a person you are entrusting with an important job. This is very quaint, and honestly, I'm a big fan of the principles on which this nation was founded ... but this is merely one of those principles. Why do you think that the founding document of our laws, the Constitution, enshrines the postal service? The postal service was then, what the internet is now. The founding fathers also recognized the power of shedding light on the legislative process. Tools like this help that.
- afthonos 14y ago
  > Now, I prefer #1, but willing to settle for #2. You seem to reject both? I completely embrace 2, as you do. I just don't think that live tracking of legislation is the way to do it, and I think that it has dangerous pitfalls. > If you think lawyers understand the law, well, you're a bit naive. I think they understand the principles on which the law is grounded. Basically, either law school is useful or it isn't. By most accounts, law school is 3 years of intense study, at the end of which you're qualified to...use LexisNexis. Either those 3 years are a waste, or they learn something that takes roughly that long to learn. Of course some laymen can achieve that knowledge, and some in less than 3 years, much like people can learn to be good programmers without setting foot in a classroom. But that's an exception, and we can't predicate the functioning of society on exceptions. > That's like saying a baby is useless because it can't hold on to a job. Well, yeah. If you kill the baby, it never will. That's a fair point. And part of the beauty of the baby is that you don't know what it will grow up to do. But every parent has a dream for their child; my argument is that the dream expressed is misguided. > This is very quaint, and honestly, I'm a big fan of the principles on which this nation was founded ... but this is merely one of those principles. I know, it is quaint. But I don't really see a good alternative, because I don't trust our ability (yes, mine included) to figure out who to trust based on crafted messages, or selected video clips. As I said, your point about the baby is well taken. This can definitely be a building block—but why don't we think about a building block to what? As a thought, how about running analyses on laws vs. desired outcomes vs. predicated outcomes. Analyses run using open-source code—and hopefully eventually with predictive power. I think something like that might be very useful, and would definitely rely on this repository; especially if someone has the resources and time to artificially create it going back several decades.

maratd 14y ago

> Understanding law is an expertise, not a casual hobby. Wow. This is patently offensive. My responsibility as a citizen is to understand the law and comply with it. In fact, that's the only responsibility I have as a citizen. That's what it means to be civil. To be civilized. To live under a body of laws. If you don't understand them, you can't follow them ... how can you call yourself civilized? If our laws are so complex that they can't be grasped by any layman, then we have two choices. 1. Eliminate the laws and render the system simple enough to grasp. 2. Create tools that allow us to grasp them. Now, I prefer #1, but willing to settle for #2. You seem to reject both? Anyway, this is the beginning of an open-source system that's already available in proprietary form in some fashion. If you think lawyers understand the law, well, you're a bit naive. They just use LexisNexis. Which provides laws, cases, rulings, opinions, etc. etc. > you won't take into account Supreme Court rulings that will affect the interpretation Please read some of the other comments. The author gets this. And this is just Version 1.0, right? That's like saying a baby is useless because it can't hold on to a job. Well, yeah. If you kill the baby, it never will. > You are supposed to try and meet your representative. You are supposed to talk to her, and listen to her, not as a politician, but as a person you are entrusting with an important job. This is very quaint, and honestly, I'm a big fan of the principles on which this nation was founded ... but this is merely one of those principles. Why do you think that the founding document of our laws, the Constitution, enshrines the postal service? The postal service was then, what the internet is now. The founding fathers also recognized the power of shedding light on the legislative process. Tools like this help that.

afthonos 14y ago
> Now, I prefer #1, but willing to settle for #2. You seem to reject both? I completely embrace 2, as you do. I just don't think that live tracking of legislation is the way to do it, and I think that it has dangerous pitfalls. > If you think lawyers understand the law, well, you're a bit naive. I think they understand the principles on which the law is grounded. Basically, either law school is useful or it isn't. By most accounts, law school is 3 years of intense study, at the end of which you're qualified to...use LexisNexis. Either those 3 years are a waste, or they learn something that takes roughly that long to learn. Of course some laymen can achieve that knowledge, and some in less than 3 years, much like people can learn to be good programmers without setting foot in a classroom. But that's an exception, and we can't predicate the functioning of society on exceptions. > That's like saying a baby is useless because it can't hold on to a job. Well, yeah. If you kill the baby, it never will. That's a fair point. And part of the beauty of the baby is that you don't know what it will grow up to do. But every parent has a dream for their child; my argument is that the dream expressed is misguided. > This is very quaint, and honestly, I'm a big fan of the principles on which this nation was founded ... but this is merely one of those principles. I know, it is quaint. But I don't really see a good alternative, because I don't trust our ability (yes, mine included) to figure out who to trust based on crafted messages, or selected video clips. As I said, your point about the baby is well taken. This can definitely be a building block—but why don't we think about a building block to what? As a thought, how about running analyses on laws vs. desired outcomes vs. predicated outcomes. Analyses run using open-source code—and hopefully eventually with predictive power. I think something like that might be very useful, and would definitely rely on this repository; especially if someone has the resources and time to artificially create it going back several decades.