5 ms·

I'm always amazed at how we have laws for every little thing (or more accurately, against every little thing). Maybe it's the coder in me but it just seems so

I'm always amazed at how we have laws for every little thing (or more accurately, against every little thing). Maybe it's the coder in me but it just seems so inefficient, like an if…else if… with dozens of conditions…

TillE 12y ago
I think this is basically why so many nerds become Libertarians. Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program.
- nova 12y ago
  So let's keep making it more complicated, then.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about.
- briandh 12y ago
  > Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program. > Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about. This canard about libertarians [1] not understanding the complexity of the real world is oft-repeated, but it is misguided, and comes off as condescending to boot.[2] The likes of Hayek and Friedman did not contend that reality is simple; they contended that it was complex -- too complex for economic systems based on expansive government intervention (socialism, mercantilism, etc) to grapple with and produce satisfactory outcomes. They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist. Now, you are free to question whether empirical evidence bears out either point. But it is ignorant to suggest libertarianism is based on eschewing complexity. 1. Here I am referring mostly to libertarians of a consequentialist lean. Libertarians of a mostly deontological lean are orthogonal to this discussion because whether or not they understand the world's complexity is mostly immaterial to their policy prescriptions, as they are concerned mostly with morality, not outcomes. 2. Usually unintentionally, I would hope, though it seems that at least with mpyne it is not.
  - mjburgess 12y ago
    > They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist. They shifted simplicity from society to the individual. So if the social was complex it was nevertheless based on a the motives of simple individuals. That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic.
    - briandh 12y ago
      > That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic. I can't speak to Friedman, but Hayek's views were more subtle than that (and so are mine, for what little it matters). He recognized many limitations on the rationality of economic actors; he advocated what today would probably be referred to as bounded rationality. http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=hayek+rationality&source=bl&ots=BbdMowKGuW&sig=BNarY7e-dXDGcT4drh6gr4QwNzs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImHBU7_VM4yoyATPioHoCA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=hayek%20rationality&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA... http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=hayek+rationality&source=bl&ots=ldf6TOEIvn&sig=DGoAo-xJ3Oh1AHp377NZrazSSic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImHBU7_VM4yoyATPioHoCA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=hayek%20rationality&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8... http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137278159.0015 http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/97811372... (same book) http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_agree_with_some_of_friedrich_hayek/ http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_a... http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf
      - mjburgess 12y ago
        Even bounded rationality is totally wrong. Human behaviour isnt (economically) rational "except for limitations". The very source of the value we place upon institutions, people, goals, etc. is entirely a product of the interaction between culture and basic psychological drives. People do not have "preferences" in the strong propositional sense required for modelling. They have drives, ideals, etc. These can be systematized by asking them to rank states of affairs but even here things are delicate (which is why polling on issues is generally useless). Any kind of "rationality" talk is extremely prescriptive in practice: failing to actually look at the world and describe it, libertarians et al. go around theorizing in an ahistorical vacuum with pseudo-computer human stand-ins. And criticise actions in the real world that dont conform.
- baddox 12y ago
  I don't think that the proposals of most libertarians are any more or less complex than the proposals of American liberals, or American conservatives, or democratic socialists, or fascists, etc. Certain aspects of plans obvious vary in complexity, but that's hardly the distinguishing factor.
logicallee 12y ago
You're just encapsulating reality properly. Laws go with what they go with, they're like a part of specific things. For example, if it were impossible to create laws regarding traffic signs, it would still be possible to achieve a similar 4-way intersection, with cars stopping for each other - it would have to physically prevent passage from one side to the other, alternative the open direction, like gates or whatever. Can you imagine if that were at every intersection? Or you can just put up 3 lights on a timer, and a bit of law and add it to the list of stuff the system handles. So complaining about "laws for every little thing" is a really poor way of looking at things. What maritime traffic laws apply to you? or hazardous waste laws? or commercial construction laws? or banking regulation laws? etvcetc. One answer is "all of them" but the other is "none of them". They're really part of that aspect of activity, not really part of one long codebook of everything you have to obey all the time. You can go weeks without even thinking about the law. But if you start do something regulated you haven't done before, it might be your first thought. This is as it should be - the law is like an API for a friendly reality. Just look at places with total lawlessness and lack of rule of law. That is not a preferable starting point for any project or endeavor you might conceivably participate in.
- baddox 12y ago
  > For example, if it were impossible to create laws regarding traffic signs, it would still be possible to achieve a similar 4-way intersection, with cars stopping for each other - it would have to physically prevent passage from one side to the other, alternative the open direction, like gates or whatever. In complex organized sports like football (association or American, take your pick), there are lots of rules about the movement of players, the flow of the game, etc. that are generally followed, and penalties are generally well enforced when the rules are not followed. And yet there are no laws behind these rules. It would appear that complex rules can be created and enforced by mechanisms other than law.
  - logicallee 12y ago
    OP's beef was with the existence of complex rules - not that the complex rules have force of law. You and the other respondent gave examples of where complex rules will arise even if the state doesn't come up with them. Presumably the "coder in Sacha" would hate all those "if/else" statements just as much. But they just don't apply to the OP - unless the OP becomes a football coach or starts operating a fishery, he can just ignore them. (I did mean to start my original comment "You're just not encapsulating reality properly".)
dm2 12y ago
If you are programming something that doesn't want people to cross the street except at crosswalks (for safety and traffic efficiency reasons), then you would code in a wall along the roads with gaps for crosswalks. Reality has many more variables, like cost, beauty, physics, etc. There are many minor laws that are necessary (don't show your penis to children, don't poop on the ground) then there are some that are driven by other reasons such as greed, self-interest, and population control (drug laws, surveillance laws) then there are other laws that are a grey area such as congress being exempt from insider trading. Safety is important too, (seatbelts, shining lasers at airplanes). Then there are the religious laws that are probably unnecessary (can't buy alcohol on Sundays). I think that laws should have mandatory expiration times or a review process to ensure they are still relevant. The great thing about the US is that each state can have different laws and each can be a test-bed to see what works out best, it's not necessarily used like that but it's a good idea in theory.
- ende 12y ago
  Basically, all law should be open source and it's content managed via pull requests.
  - dm2 12y ago
    I would prefer being able to propose, modify, and vote on every federal, state, and local law via my computer. That would require a national id system, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it's not like there aren't several database of those currently. Congress should be able to override laws that passe public votes (if the decision by congress is 75%+), and the POTUS should be able to override the decision of congress. At least we should test this idea in one state. If it is successful then roll it out to other states, then nationwide. It would be nice to see more public discussion on ways to improve government and processes that would actually make these ideas possible to implement. Unfortunately those in power don't want to give up their power even for the good of the country, so that makes it very difficult.
  - MRSallee 12y ago
    When life is a virtual reality...
bsder 12y ago
I agree. France should simply ban Amazon completely as an example to the next company that thinks about trying to take advantage of loopholes.

TillE 12y ago

I think this is basically why so many nerds become Libertarians. Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program.

nova 12y ago
So let's keep making it more complicated, then.
- mpyne 12y ago
  Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about.
briandh 12y ago
> Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program. > Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about. This canard about libertarians [1] not understanding the complexity of the real world is oft-repeated, but it is misguided, and comes off as condescending to boot.[2] The likes of Hayek and Friedman did not contend that reality is simple; they contended that it was complex -- too complex for economic systems based on expansive government intervention (socialism, mercantilism, etc) to grapple with and produce satisfactory outcomes. They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist. Now, you are free to question whether empirical evidence bears out either point. But it is ignorant to suggest libertarianism is based on eschewing complexity. 1. Here I am referring mostly to libertarians of a consequentialist lean. Libertarians of a mostly deontological lean are orthogonal to this discussion because whether or not they understand the world's complexity is mostly immaterial to their policy prescriptions, as they are concerned mostly with morality, not outcomes. 2. Usually unintentionally, I would hope, though it seems that at least with mpyne it is not.
- mjburgess 12y ago
  > They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist. They shifted simplicity from society to the individual. So if the social was complex it was nevertheless based on a the motives of simple individuals. That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic.
  - briandh 12y ago
    > That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic. I can't speak to Friedman, but Hayek's views were more subtle than that (and so are mine, for what little it matters). He recognized many limitations on the rationality of economic actors; he advocated what today would probably be referred to as bounded rationality. http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=hayek+rationality&source=bl&ots=BbdMowKGuW&sig=BNarY7e-dXDGcT4drh6gr4QwNzs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImHBU7_VM4yoyATPioHoCA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=hayek%20rationality&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA... http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=hayek+rationality&source=bl&ots=ldf6TOEIvn&sig=DGoAo-xJ3Oh1AHp377NZrazSSic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImHBU7_VM4yoyATPioHoCA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=hayek%20rationality&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8... http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137278159.0015 http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/97811372... (same book) http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_agree_with_some_of_friedrich_hayek/ http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_a... http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf
    - mjburgess 12y ago
      Even bounded rationality is totally wrong. Human behaviour isnt (economically) rational "except for limitations". The very source of the value we place upon institutions, people, goals, etc. is entirely a product of the interaction between culture and basic psychological drives. People do not have "preferences" in the strong propositional sense required for modelling. They have drives, ideals, etc. These can be systematized by asking them to rank states of affairs but even here things are delicate (which is why polling on issues is generally useless). Any kind of "rationality" talk is extremely prescriptive in practice: failing to actually look at the world and describe it, libertarians et al. go around theorizing in an ahistorical vacuum with pseudo-computer human stand-ins. And criticise actions in the real world that dont conform.
baddox 12y ago
I don't think that the proposals of most libertarians are any more or less complex than the proposals of American liberals, or American conservatives, or democratic socialists, or fascists, etc. Certain aspects of plans obvious vary in complexity, but that's hardly the distinguishing factor.

logicallee 12y ago

You're just encapsulating reality properly. Laws go with what they go with, they're like a part of specific things. For example, if it were impossible to create laws regarding traffic signs, it would still be possible to achieve a similar 4-way intersection, with cars stopping for each other - it would have to physically prevent passage from one side to the other, alternative the open direction, like gates or whatever. Can you imagine if that were at every intersection? Or you can just put up 3 lights on a timer, and a bit of law and add it to the list of stuff the system handles. So complaining about "laws for every little thing" is a really poor way of looking at things. What maritime traffic laws apply to you? or hazardous waste laws? or commercial construction laws? or banking regulation laws? etvcetc. One answer is "all of them" but the other is "none of them". They're really part of that aspect of activity, not really part of one long codebook of everything you have to obey all the time. You can go weeks without even thinking about the law. But if you start do something regulated you haven't done before, it might be your first thought. This is as it should be - the law is like an API for a friendly reality. Just look at places with total lawlessness and lack of rule of law. That is not a preferable starting point for any project or endeavor you might conceivably participate in.

baddox 12y ago
> For example, if it were impossible to create laws regarding traffic signs, it would still be possible to achieve a similar 4-way intersection, with cars stopping for each other - it would have to physically prevent passage from one side to the other, alternative the open direction, like gates or whatever. In complex organized sports like football (association or American, take your pick), there are lots of rules about the movement of players, the flow of the game, etc. that are generally followed, and penalties are generally well enforced when the rules are not followed. And yet there are no laws behind these rules. It would appear that complex rules can be created and enforced by mechanisms other than law.
- logicallee 12y ago
  OP's beef was with the existence of complex rules - not that the complex rules have force of law. You and the other respondent gave examples of where complex rules will arise even if the state doesn't come up with them. Presumably the "coder in Sacha" would hate all those "if/else" statements just as much. But they just don't apply to the OP - unless the OP becomes a football coach or starts operating a fishery, he can just ignore them. (I did mean to start my original comment "You're just not encapsulating reality properly".)

dm2 12y ago

If you are programming something that doesn't want people to cross the street except at crosswalks (for safety and traffic efficiency reasons), then you would code in a wall along the roads with gaps for crosswalks. Reality has many more variables, like cost, beauty, physics, etc. There are many minor laws that are necessary (don't show your penis to children, don't poop on the ground) then there are some that are driven by other reasons such as greed, self-interest, and population control (drug laws, surveillance laws) then there are other laws that are a grey area such as congress being exempt from insider trading. Safety is important too, (seatbelts, shining lasers at airplanes). Then there are the religious laws that are probably unnecessary (can't buy alcohol on Sundays). I think that laws should have mandatory expiration times or a review process to ensure they are still relevant. The great thing about the US is that each state can have different laws and each can be a test-bed to see what works out best, it's not necessarily used like that but it's a good idea in theory.

ende 12y ago
Basically, all law should be open source and it's content managed via pull requests.
- dm2 12y ago
  I would prefer being able to propose, modify, and vote on every federal, state, and local law via my computer. That would require a national id system, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it's not like there aren't several database of those currently. Congress should be able to override laws that passe public votes (if the decision by congress is 75%+), and the POTUS should be able to override the decision of congress. At least we should test this idea in one state. If it is successful then roll it out to other states, then nationwide. It would be nice to see more public discussion on ways to improve government and processes that would actually make these ideas possible to implement. Unfortunately those in power don't want to give up their power even for the good of the country, so that makes it very difficult.
- MRSallee 12y ago
  When life is a virtual reality...

bsder 12y ago

I agree. France should simply ban Amazon completely as an example to the next company that thinks about trying to take advantage of loopholes.