3 ms·

Strangely enough, we've ignored that "find-and-replace across the body of law" in the past. Even the new gender laws ignore existing laws. I sometimes wish that

Strangely enough, we've ignored that "find-and-replace across the body of law" in the past. Even the new gender laws ignore existing laws. I sometimes wish that we had written a compiler for law. And a statically typed language designed for compiling policy (think Rego + Rust). Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it. Lawyers would have to learn the language and compiler tools as part of their study, but anyone in the country would have access to them so that they could run their own tests and even settle minor legal disputes without having to pay lawyers. New laws that cause compiler errors don't get through, unless you can first unblock them with a refactor (which must also compile without errors). I think it's obvious that an attempt to encode the current statue book would fail miserably. You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments) because I think we can all generally agree that killing is wrong generally. Ok, add a law "thou shake not kill". Oh, but what if someone's trying to kill you or your child? "Killing is wrong unless X is true". At the very least it would be an interesting exercise.

gxs 2y ago
Very cool, I’ve had very similar thoughts in the past. Thinking about the law in this way actually made realize how the number of bugs there is actually low for what a clusterfuck it is.
- rolandog 2y ago
  I think that corporations' leadership (and anyone that aided in the process) not being held criminally accountable, not being stripped of their ill-gotten gains, and not having to pay reparations for the damages they caused is a very serious bug. CVE 9.8/10.0 and all that.
  - 20after4 2y ago
    That's a feature, not a bug. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it I look forward to when code can express the richness of natural languages. In the meantime, formally-declared law is a fantasy. (Exhibit A: any court opinion.) > You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments) Every civilisation has a leader who thought they could reïnvent law from first principles. Nobody uses their systems. (Legal axioms ultimately track to time immemorial, i.e.g prehistory.) > Killing is wrong unless X is true Murder vs manslaugher vs self defence vs execution vs being stabbed by a soldier is a good lens into law. (Or, to be provocative, eating meat.) > it would be an interesting exercise It's a popular in laws school. In its failure one learns of the intersection between culture and the law and why VHS beat Betamax.
- verisimi 2y ago
  > Murder vs manslaugher vs self defence vs execution vs being stabbed by a soldier is a good lens into law. (Or, to be provocative, eating meat.) Very good! I think these are all interpretations of the same type of event. Do you know the Russell conjugation?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > these are all interpretations of the same type of event Sure. But legally--and culturally--very different. If someone doesn't see that, they probably shouldn't be commenting on the law. (Practically speaking, they probably aren't.)
    - verisimi 2y ago
      Right. We are talking about social conventions, not right or wrong. This is plain when we see that the same action can be legal in one country, and a serious crime in another. It's simply the rules of the game, no different to Scrabble or poker. How the individual engages with the culture/game is their business. Similarly, if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they?
verisimi 2y ago
Your mistake here, imo, is that you think law is something other than an instrument of control. You believe that it is about codifying a set of good behaviours or something. The compilation errors are intentional, rich people are able to get the coder/solicitor to express the law in terms they want. The reality is that anything written down is a metaphor for the internal moral awareness of right and wrong, and as such can be subverted. We are each able to work out right from wrong, but if we believe we have to defer to a law book, we externalise our personal authority to a book.
- raffraffraff 2y ago
  Of course it's an instrument of control, but I'm happier with it than without. And if it exists, then let it make sense and be consistent.

gxs 2y ago

Very cool, I’ve had very similar thoughts in the past. Thinking about the law in this way actually made realize how the number of bugs there is actually low for what a clusterfuck it is.

rolandog 2y ago
I think that corporations' leadership (and anyone that aided in the process) not being held criminally accountable, not being stripped of their ill-gotten gains, and not having to pay reparations for the damages they caused is a very serious bug. CVE 9.8/10.0 and all that.
- 20after4 2y ago
  That's a feature, not a bug. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it I look forward to when code can express the richness of natural languages. In the meantime, formally-declared law is a fantasy. (Exhibit A: any court opinion.) > You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments) Every civilisation has a leader who thought they could reïnvent law from first principles. Nobody uses their systems. (Legal axioms ultimately track to time immemorial, i.e.g prehistory.) > Killing is wrong unless X is true Murder vs manslaugher vs self defence vs execution vs being stabbed by a soldier is a good lens into law. (Or, to be provocative, eating meat.) > it would be an interesting exercise It's a popular in laws school. In its failure one learns of the intersection between culture and the law and why VHS beat Betamax.

verisimi 2y ago
> Murder vs manslaugher vs self defence vs execution vs being stabbed by a soldier is a good lens into law. (Or, to be provocative, eating meat.) Very good! I think these are all interpretations of the same type of event. Do you know the Russell conjugation?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > these are all interpretations of the same type of event Sure. But legally--and culturally--very different. If someone doesn't see that, they probably shouldn't be commenting on the law. (Practically speaking, they probably aren't.)
  - verisimi 2y ago
    Right. We are talking about social conventions, not right or wrong. This is plain when we see that the same action can be legal in one country, and a serious crime in another. It's simply the rules of the game, no different to Scrabble or poker. How the individual engages with the culture/game is their business. Similarly, if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they?

verisimi 2y ago

Your mistake here, imo, is that you think law is something other than an instrument of control. You believe that it is about codifying a set of good behaviours or something. The compilation errors are intentional, rich people are able to get the coder/solicitor to express the law in terms they want. The reality is that anything written down is a metaphor for the internal moral awareness of right and wrong, and as such can be subverted. We are each able to work out right from wrong, but if we believe we have to defer to a law book, we externalise our personal authority to a book.

raffraffraff 2y ago
Of course it's an instrument of control, but I'm happier with it than without. And if it exists, then let it make sense and be consistent.