3 ms·

> I feel like the root cause system built for the 1700s The root cause is that lawyers are expensive a corporations have more money than just about anyone else

by dartos 2y ago

> I feel like the root cause system built for the 1700s The root cause is that lawyers are expensive a corporations have more money than just about anyone else. Couple that with a legislature which pretty much only passes laws in a reactionary manner and the fact that corporate lobbying has been a mainstay in US politics for the majority of the lifetime of the US and you get what we have now.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
The problem is not that skill is expensive, it is that methods are inapt and archaic. If I told you coding was unsatisfactory in a scenario where a human compiler was required to process each instruction, the correct response is not "developers" and "corporations". There is a right and wrong and our judges and lawyers demonstrate over and over they have not constructed a modern system for doing or finding it.
- dartos 2y ago
  I think you’re operating with a very limited understanding of what goes into law. Law isn’t like programming. There’s no compiler. There’s no specific target machine code to which all laws must boil down to. You can’t automate law, since the desired outcome for each case is not known from the start. That’s the whole “justice is blind” saying. The issue is that the laws governing corporations were written by corporations and have lots and lots of loopholes. To match your analogy: You’re suggesting an entire codebase rewrite when, truthfully, we need to refactor our laws surrounding what corporations can and can’t do and what punishment should be for corporations and the people that run them. A rewrite always sounds appealing when you first join a project, before understanding why architecture decisions were made in the first place. What specifically do you think is inapt or archaic about our legal system other than the individuals that make it up?
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Rhetorical, but why do lawyers have to be expensive when they can be your only recluse against being abused by companies? That's part of the problem right there. I understand that law needs to be meticulous, but we're clearly doing something wrong if the system is disproportionately hitting wallets wrong. The legislative stuff is unfortunate, but partially brought upon by the people. That one more falls to lack of understanding from the voterbase that put those people in. Someone like Nancy Pelosi or Matt Gaetz should not have been so easy to keep winning more terms if you spent 2 minutes researching them. But alas.
- dartos 2y ago
  It’s not precisely that lawyers are expensive. There are affordable lawyers. The issue is that a corporation can afford to hire teams of 10s of lawyers to pour hours into any given case. The real problem is what to do about it? Suggesting some limits is akin to suggesting that laws shouldn’t be explored, dissecting, and understood down to the letter, which it should.

by dartos 2y ago

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

The problem is not that skill is expensive, it is that methods are inapt and archaic. If I told you coding was unsatisfactory in a scenario where a human compiler was required to process each instruction, the correct response is not "developers" and "corporations". There is a right and wrong and our judges and lawyers demonstrate over and over they have not constructed a modern system for doing or finding it.

dartos 2y ago
I think you’re operating with a very limited understanding of what goes into law. Law isn’t like programming. There’s no compiler. There’s no specific target machine code to which all laws must boil down to. You can’t automate law, since the desired outcome for each case is not known from the start. That’s the whole “justice is blind” saying. The issue is that the laws governing corporations were written by corporations and have lots and lots of loopholes. To match your analogy: You’re suggesting an entire codebase rewrite when, truthfully, we need to refactor our laws surrounding what corporations can and can’t do and what punishment should be for corporations and the people that run them. A rewrite always sounds appealing when you first join a project, before understanding why architecture decisions were made in the first place. What specifically do you think is inapt or archaic about our legal system other than the individuals that make it up?

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Rhetorical, but why do lawyers have to be expensive when they can be your only recluse against being abused by companies? That's part of the problem right there. I understand that law needs to be meticulous, but we're clearly doing something wrong if the system is disproportionately hitting wallets wrong. The legislative stuff is unfortunate, but partially brought upon by the people. That one more falls to lack of understanding from the voterbase that put those people in. Someone like Nancy Pelosi or Matt Gaetz should not have been so easy to keep winning more terms if you spent 2 minutes researching them. But alas.

dartos 2y ago
It’s not precisely that lawyers are expensive. There are affordable lawyers. The issue is that a corporation can afford to hire teams of 10s of lawyers to pour hours into any given case. The real problem is what to do about it? Suggesting some limits is akin to suggesting that laws shouldn’t be explored, dissecting, and understood down to the letter, which it should.