From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Problem is the Law (Was Re: "Full Employment Act"....)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:19:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep2.173625.27207@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>It is true that the real world is complex and the rules have to reflect that.
>However it is UNNECESSARY complexity (arbitrariness) in the rules
>that we have to get rid of.

  How do you decide what rules are unnecessary?  Virtually every rule
  which exists has some antecedent condition which led up to it and 
  inspired it to be created.   

> Human beings have a finite capacity to process and store information,
> and one set of rules is objectively better than another (that causes
> the same behavior) if it requires less effort to manage and to follow.

  But as you say, "human beings have a finite capacity to process and
  store information" and as a result we can't reliably tell when the 
  outcome or behavior is the same.  That is, human societies are 
  complex systems with the usual attributes of such systems which make
  it hard to predict outcomes.


>The very reason for the existence of rules is to SIMPLIFY the management of
>society.  This is why people are punished for breaking laws, whether or not
>their actions have been beneficial to society. 

  Yet another instance of OVERsimplification.  If a rule produces
  such a result then clearly it wasn't detailed enough to account
  for all circumstances and is in need of more exceptions.



>We may have to completely overhaul our rules and redefine the responsibilities
>of individuals.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if our responsibilities
>increase as a result, effectively lowering our standard of living, everything
>else being constant.

  But I don't WANT a lower standard of living.  If simplifying things
  produces a lower standard of living then I would call that OVER-
  simplification.


>It doesn't matter how much we internalize and computerize our information.  It
>is a most fundamental fact that the complexity cannot exceed our capacity to
>handle it AT ANY TIME.

  I disagree.   I can computerize a road map of the US (literally -- 
  there's a CDROM of this available now).  The road system of the US 
  is far too complex for me to hold in my head, even in a general way.
  But at any instant I only have to deal with one infinitessimally
  tiny part of it and this is perfectly feasible.   Likewise as a 
  a software engineer, I am often responsible for fixing bugs in 
  huge programs; the last one I worked on here had over 700,000
  lines of source code.  There's no way that I can claim to understand
  a program that big and complex in a general way.  But usually I 
  don't have to.  Usually I can concentrate on a specific aspect of
  the system's (mis-)behavior.  

  If you look at modern engineering projects, say, the Boeing 777 
  you will see that the issue of complexity management is not unique
  to law.   I could make a case that by some measures of complexity
  a modern engineering project is far more complex than the legal 
  system.  And people's lives and livelihoods depend on getting 
  these things right.   So I still say complexity is prt of the modern
  condition and things will get a lot more complex in the future.
  I say we embrace it and learn to love it, or at least learn to 
  live with it.
  
  In any case, even if it's theoretically desirable to simplify the
  law, there is no practicle likelihood of gaining agreement on
  what constitutes an "arbitrary" or "unnecessary" law among the 
  political and cultural forces which comprise society so this 
  whole discussion is moot.



---peter