6 ms·

Ideally the legal system wouldn't be byzantine and prohibitively expensive for mere mortals to engage with.

by glial 2y ago

bell-cot 2y ago
Too bad that the legal system is made of lawyers, whose interests run directly contrary to that ideal.
- digitaltrees 2y ago
  Legal systems becoming complex predates the emergence of lawyers. Lawyers have also led significant efforts to simplify the law. For example the American Bar Association has consistently created simple model statute frameworks that eventually are adopted. Law is complex because society is complex.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > For example the American Bar Association has consistently created simple model statute frameworks that eventually are adopted. "Simple" is not an accurate description of typical model legislation. > Law is complex because society is complex. Law is complex because it's an evolved system influenced by politics and corruption. The extent of its complexity is not intrinsic and much of it is specifically a defense mechanism against public understanding, because the public wouldn't support many things in the status quo if they understood the workings of them, and the people who do understand the workings but prefer the status quo use this to their advantage.
    - digitaltrees 2y ago
      Your description is not consistent with history. Politics and corruption are not outsized drivers of law. Especially case law built through the courts. It’s all edge cases. Try the example of drafting a standard apartment lease, over millions of transactions between landlords and tenants lots of edge cases emerge. So over time leases get more complicated. And then the law around interpretation and enforcement gets complicated.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > Politics and corruption are not outsized drivers of law. Especially case law built through the courts. It’s all edge cases. Case law is full of politics. How do you think courts resolve the ambiguities? If there was an objective standard for how to do it then judges could be replaced by computer programs. Judges are used instead because rigorous and consistent application of rules would lead to outcomes that are politically inexpedient, so judges only apply the rules as written when politics fails to require something different. > Try the example of drafting a standard apartment lease, over millions of transactions between landlords and tenants lots of edge cases emerge. So over time leases get more complicated. This is just a facet of how contracts and lawyers work. The law creates defaults that a contractual agreement can override, so each time the law establishes a default that landlords don't like but are allowed to change, they add a new clause to the lease to turn it back the other way. What they really want is a simple one-liner that says all disputes the law allows to be resolved in favor of the landlord, will be. But politics doesn't allow them to get away with that because what they're doing would be too clear to the public, so politics requires them to achieve the result they want through an opacifying layer of complexity.
    - golergka 2y ago
      "Politics and corruption" is exactly what is complex about society, and it is absolutely intristic to society. That's why we have laws in the first place. > because the public wouldn't support many things in the status quo if they understood the workings of them Personally, I've observed the opposite more often: somebody feeds the public a clickbait-ey and manipulative "explanation" of how things work, and public becomes enraged without any real understanding of complexities and trade-offs of the system, as well as unintended consequences of proposed "fixes". It is the main reason why socialism is a thing.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > "Politics and corruption" is exactly what is complex about society, and it is absolutely intristic to society. That's why we have laws in the first place. The reason we have laws is to facilitate corruption? That seems like something we ought not to want. > Personally, I've observed the opposite more often: somebody feeds the public a clickbait-ey and manipulative "explanation" of how things work, and public becomes enraged without any real understanding of complexities and trade-offs of the system, as well as unintended consequences of proposed "fixes". That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things. It has the same cause. People tune out when something becomes so complicated they can't understand it. So if they want people to pay attention to them, they over-simplify things. If they want people to ignore what they're doing, they over-complicate things.
        golergka 2y ago
        > The reason we have laws is to facilitate corruption? That seems like something we ought not to want. No, the reason we have laws is because politics and corruption and crime is intristic to society. They are the reality of human condition which can't go away and we can't ignore, so we have to deal with it. > That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things. I had in mind the part of the "media" which "rebels against the media", Noam Chomskies and Michael Moores of the world.
        2y ago
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Reminds me of the expression "in and of itself".
gleenn 2y ago
I think the same could be said software engineers. I don't engage with the general public about writing people's next brilliant idea because it's a hige waste of my time when I could be making FAANG bucks talking to people who know that I'm worth it. While I will alwatry to explain to my mom how the internet works etc, it's not economically justifiable to engage laymen tonsolve their probno matter how altruistic it may seem. I still have to pay the bills. How are lawyers any different?
- glial 2y ago
  Lawyers are the interface between the public and the justice system -- which would exist whether software did or not. It's an access and equity issue: people with money have access to the legal system. People without largely don't.
- autoexec 2y ago
  I don't think anyone would argue that lawyers shouldn't get paid for their time, but in many cases their rates are excessive. When people's rights and freedom are at risk the cost should never be a barrier that most people can't afford to clear.
freejazz 2y ago
Is that your experience with traffic tickets?
- glial 2y ago
  Sure - when I was a kid, I was speeding in a neighborhood (think 40 in a 30) and an annoyed cop charged me with reckless driving. The public defender recommended I plead guilty, pay a large fine and be put on probation for a year. I think a more expensive lawyer would have had different advice.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Nothing about that sounds byzantine nor prohibitively expensive. Heck, you were provided an attorney for free.

Ideally the legal system wouldn't be byzantine and prohibitively expensive for mere mortals to engage with.

by glial 2y ago

Ideally the legal system wouldn't be byzantine and prohibitively expensive for mere mortals to engage with.

bell-cot 2y ago

Too bad that the legal system is made of lawyers, whose interests run directly contrary to that ideal.

digitaltrees 2y ago
Legal systems becoming complex predates the emergence of lawyers. Lawyers have also led significant efforts to simplify the law. For example the American Bar Association has consistently created simple model statute frameworks that eventually are adopted. Law is complex because society is complex.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > For example the American Bar Association has consistently created simple model statute frameworks that eventually are adopted. "Simple" is not an accurate description of typical model legislation. > Law is complex because society is complex. Law is complex because it's an evolved system influenced by politics and corruption. The extent of its complexity is not intrinsic and much of it is specifically a defense mechanism against public understanding, because the public wouldn't support many things in the status quo if they understood the workings of them, and the people who do understand the workings but prefer the status quo use this to their advantage.
  - digitaltrees 2y ago
    Your description is not consistent with history. Politics and corruption are not outsized drivers of law. Especially case law built through the courts. It’s all edge cases. Try the example of drafting a standard apartment lease, over millions of transactions between landlords and tenants lots of edge cases emerge. So over time leases get more complicated. And then the law around interpretation and enforcement gets complicated.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Politics and corruption are not outsized drivers of law. Especially case law built through the courts. It’s all edge cases. Case law is full of politics. How do you think courts resolve the ambiguities? If there was an objective standard for how to do it then judges could be replaced by computer programs. Judges are used instead because rigorous and consistent application of rules would lead to outcomes that are politically inexpedient, so judges only apply the rules as written when politics fails to require something different. > Try the example of drafting a standard apartment lease, over millions of transactions between landlords and tenants lots of edge cases emerge. So over time leases get more complicated. This is just a facet of how contracts and lawyers work. The law creates defaults that a contractual agreement can override, so each time the law establishes a default that landlords don't like but are allowed to change, they add a new clause to the lease to turn it back the other way. What they really want is a simple one-liner that says all disputes the law allows to be resolved in favor of the landlord, will be. But politics doesn't allow them to get away with that because what they're doing would be too clear to the public, so politics requires them to achieve the result they want through an opacifying layer of complexity.
  - golergka 2y ago
    "Politics and corruption" is exactly what is complex about society, and it is absolutely intristic to society. That's why we have laws in the first place. > because the public wouldn't support many things in the status quo if they understood the workings of them Personally, I've observed the opposite more often: somebody feeds the public a clickbait-ey and manipulative "explanation" of how things work, and public becomes enraged without any real understanding of complexities and trade-offs of the system, as well as unintended consequences of proposed "fixes". It is the main reason why socialism is a thing.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > "Politics and corruption" is exactly what is complex about society, and it is absolutely intristic to society. That's why we have laws in the first place. The reason we have laws is to facilitate corruption? That seems like something we ought not to want. > Personally, I've observed the opposite more often: somebody feeds the public a clickbait-ey and manipulative "explanation" of how things work, and public becomes enraged without any real understanding of complexities and trade-offs of the system, as well as unintended consequences of proposed "fixes". That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things. It has the same cause. People tune out when something becomes so complicated they can't understand it. So if they want people to pay attention to them, they over-simplify things. If they want people to ignore what they're doing, they over-complicate things.
      - golergka 2y ago
        > The reason we have laws is to facilitate corruption? That seems like something we ought not to want. No, the reason we have laws is because politics and corruption and crime is intristic to society. They are the reality of human condition which can't go away and we can't ignore, so we have to deal with it. > That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things. I had in mind the part of the "media" which "rebels against the media", Noam Chomskies and Michael Moores of the world.
        2y ago
HPsquared 2y ago
Reminds me of the expression "in and of itself".

gleenn 2y ago

I think the same could be said software engineers. I don't engage with the general public about writing people's next brilliant idea because it's a hige waste of my time when I could be making FAANG bucks talking to people who know that I'm worth it. While I will alwatry to explain to my mom how the internet works etc, it's not economically justifiable to engage laymen tonsolve their probno matter how altruistic it may seem. I still have to pay the bills. How are lawyers any different?

glial 2y ago
Lawyers are the interface between the public and the justice system -- which would exist whether software did or not. It's an access and equity issue: people with money have access to the legal system. People without largely don't.
autoexec 2y ago
I don't think anyone would argue that lawyers shouldn't get paid for their time, but in many cases their rates are excessive. When people's rights and freedom are at risk the cost should never be a barrier that most people can't afford to clear.

freejazz 2y ago

Is that your experience with traffic tickets?

glial 2y ago
Sure - when I was a kid, I was speeding in a neighborhood (think 40 in a 30) and an annoyed cop charged me with reckless driving. The public defender recommended I plead guilty, pay a large fine and be put on probation for a year. I think a more expensive lawyer would have had different advice.
- freejazz 2y ago
  Nothing about that sounds byzantine nor prohibitively expensive. Heck, you were provided an attorney for free.