4 ms·
So we end up in a system in which those with money to litigate will do what they want? I'd rather have airtight laws instead.
by tener 1y ago
So we end up in a system in which those with money to litigate will do what they want? I'd rather have airtight laws instead.
- _def 1y agoThat's where we are right now. Airtight laws are impossible in complex systems.
- tener 1y agoSure, but I meant airtight as a point on a spectrum rather than absolute thing. Meaning: you should prefer laws which are both generic and unambiguous.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoCan you point to an airtight law regarding speech that exists today - both as written and enforced? I can't. This is a worse is better[1] situation. Specifically, I'm arguing against the MIT approach to lawmaking. The MIT approach: > The design must be consistent. A design is allowed to be slightly less simple and less complete to avoid inconsistency. Consistency is as important as correctness. Thinking about laws like software terminates thought. 1. https://www.dreamsongs.com/WIB.html https://www.dreamsongs.com/WIB.html