5 ms·

Can you help me understand how this is a result of the system being human rather than something nonhuman?

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
It's because of the inherent "slipperiness" of language. Trying to paraphrase a lot of Wittgenstein here, but basically words only have meaning inside of human constructs. Classic example: customer wants to pay you to create a database to manage customers. You ask: what's a customer? Customer says "Isn't it obvious? Just go use a dictionary" But it's not obvious. Instead you need to have a relationship with the guy using the term. Over time, you arrive at a common understanding. Or -- English ain't C. What this means in systems of humans is that even very well defined terms can "drift" over time and from generation to generation. What we're seeing now in the U.S. is a nation that nowhere resembles being faithful to the social contract, our constitution. Yet if you start teasing apart why it got like that, you find a lot of little, somewhat reasonable re-interpretations of what various terms mean. Don't even get me started on the Commerce Clause. It's not corruption. And it's not dumb people. It's just the natural drift of meaning, combined with each generation feeling like it's facing some sort of huge existential crisis.
tripzilch 12y ago
It's the difference between Common Law (case law / precedent) as practised in many English speaking countries, and Civil Law (codified law), as practised in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law I looked into this, as sometimes on Internet fora I saw Americans argue about the interpretations of certain parts of their Constitution (or maybe it was the Bill of Rights). I used to never really pay attention to such discussions (because they do not apply to me) but when I thought about it for a little, it puzzled me very much. I always learned that Law, as it is written isn't supposed to be open for interpretation! That's why it's law, and it's written down very clearly in almost computer-like language in the ... which is when I realized I didn't know the proper English word for "book of law" (I think it's "statute"). Of course it's not nearly quite as clear-cut as that. Many European law systems have partial case law and vice versa in the US. In fact both types of systems are growing towards each other. But it used to be quite a fundamental difference in how law used to be practiced, Common Law being from England, and Codified/Civil Law from Napoleon, inspired by the Romans.

It's because of the inherent "slipperiness" of language. Trying to paraphrase a lot of Wittgenstein here, but basically words only have meaning inside of human constructs. Classic example: customer wants to pay you to create a database to manage customers. You ask: what's a customer? Customer says "Isn't it obvious? Just go use a dictionary" But it's not obvious. Instead you need to have a relationship with the guy using the term. Over time, you arrive at a common understanding. Or -- English ain't C. What this means in systems of humans is that even very well defined terms can "drift" over time and from generation to generation. What we're seeing now in the U.S. is a nation that nowhere resembles being faithful to the social contract, our constitution. Yet if you start teasing apart why it got like that, you find a lot of little, somewhat reasonable re-interpretations of what various terms mean. Don't even get me started on the Commerce Clause. It's not corruption. And it's not dumb people. It's just the natural drift of meaning, combined with each generation feeling like it's facing some sort of huge existential crisis.

tripzilch 12y ago

It's the difference between Common Law (case law / precedent) as practised in many English speaking countries, and Civil Law (codified law), as practised in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law I looked into this, as sometimes on Internet fora I saw Americans argue about the interpretations of certain parts of their Constitution (or maybe it was the Bill of Rights). I used to never really pay attention to such discussions (because they do not apply to me) but when I thought about it for a little, it puzzled me very much. I always learned that Law, as it is written isn't supposed to be open for interpretation! That's why it's law, and it's written down very clearly in almost computer-like language in the ... which is when I realized I didn't know the proper English word for "book of law" (I think it's "statute"). Of course it's not nearly quite as clear-cut as that. Many European law systems have partial case law and vice versa in the US. In fact both types of systems are growing towards each other. But it used to be quite a fundamental difference in how law used to be practiced, Common Law being from England, and Codified/Civil Law from Napoleon, inspired by the Romans.