Conversation
Notices
-
"Problem" ?
-
If it were up to me, I'd make a constitutional amendment that every law expires after 10 years, and all new laws need to be read, IN FULL, in the congressional chamber, and nobody can vote YES on them unless they sit through the entire reading and don't fall asleep the whole time.
-
If you define progress by the government and the law library becoming bigger and bigger without end, then yes, I want regression.
I want them to have just enough time to pass laws against such things as murder, robbery, and fraud, but no time whatsoever to dream up conceptions like professional licenses, food and drug regulations, and seatbelt laws.
-
@cjd how would achieve any progress if EVERYTHING is up for debate over and over again? it would end up in a shit ton of useless hearings
-
@cjd @condret This man's name is progress, i think we must kill him.
-
@cjd yeah this is a problem ofc. tbh i don't want lawyers without consciousness
-
There has to be a hard limit, otherwise it will spiral out of control as it already is.
How many words of law *should* exist, in your opinion?
-
The problem is that there is no longer any hard limit on how much law can be created. Before the advent of word processing, things had to at least be typed up, there was some kind of a limit. Now there's almost no limit.
Imagine GPT powered lawyers. Do you know what GPT lawyers will do? They'll write laws. And we will be very soon end up with hundreds of GIGABYTES of not-limited-bys and with-regard-to-section-Bs.
Every so often someone in congress hires a DC print shop to run a half dozen high speed printers and print off a bill in a couple of hours so they can throw the paper down on the table in protest of it. But everyone else just says "aye" because money talks and they're on the dole.
And just like that the number of federal crimes on the books overflows the 32 bit integer and the government makes it's way closer and closer to its inevitable collapse.
-
@cjd i just don't see any point in debate that murder is bad every 10 years over and over again. no sane person would attend to this, because it is obviously a bad thing to do (follows from kant's categorical imperative). you'd likely end in a situation, where murder becomes legal, because everybody thought enough other people would go to the boring hearing.
-
The US Code isn't that long. Only a couple of shelves. But add in regulations, and federal case law, state law, regs, and cases, and key cites, and practice materials.... we're taking talking a multi-floor library with movable shelves.
I don't even know how the old timers did it. We had to do research in the library in legal writing. We weren't allowed to use westlaw or lexus nexus for that assignment. We had to hand search key citations etc on paper to find the statues and cases on paper. Clicking links on westlaw is way easier.
-
I don't mean the length of one law, I mean the length of all statutes in the law library.
Of course common law and jurisprudence is another matter, and should be, as the settlement of disputes between parties is should be able to consider the history of thinking on the topic (though I'd argue the judge ought to be required to recite their opinion in court, lest those too become GPT-generated monstrosities filling entire harddrives.)
-
@cjd depends on the topic.
If i had to make a decission, i'd take the german Umsatzsteuergesetz (value added tax act) as an approximation for an upper limit for the length. the topic is rather complicated
cjd
condret :verified: :ancom: :radare2:<|<|
† top dog :pedomustdie:
🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the