> "law must be at least as complex as its the subject matter" is an unreasonable generalisation on the whole. I mean it's an unclear generalization to say the

> "law must be at least as complex as its the subject matter" is an unreasonable generalisation on the whole. I mean it's an unclear generalization to say the least. Consider concepts such as culpable state of mind, insanity, fact; it's not an exact science, so you always stop somewhere and generalize (you can't actually have the whole, or maybe even a sizable fraction of the subject matter). >I said "the vast majority", not all people. To be clear I'm not arguing for the total abolition of lawyers from society. What I'm talking about is the vague complexity, procedural obscurity, and the part this plays in segregating lower and upper classes. Here we had a hacker starting a civil process to get his computers back, and the response is you're crazy law is too complicated! Note that this response wasn't based on a tangible assessment of the complexity of his case or anything else, It was just based on a generalization which for some reason is supposed to apply to all of law. Although we would allow that for example this guy taught himself to code.