From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Problem is the Law (Was Re: "Full Employment Act"....)
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:12:58 GMT
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
>
>i agree that, as you say (elsewhere in your post, which i inadvertantly
>deleted), if two systems of rules are absolutely equivalent in terms of the
>outcomes of their application, we would prefer, of course, the simpler.
>but this would rarely be the case.

It was just an abstract concept to illustrate one of my points.
I don't expect to find any such two systems.  If we carry out the reform, I
expect, as I mentioned before, to see an increase in the responsibilities
of individuals under the law.  However, people will clearly know 
the legality of their actions (directly or indirectly, it doesn't really
matter if there's a lawyer or computer doing the technical work), and
if they don't it will be their fault, since the system will be made managebale
for all individuals.  This knowledge will make all the difference in the world.

I also don't fantasize that all groups and individuals will be affected
on an equal or "just" (whatever that means) basis by such a reform.  But
as I said in a reply to Peter Nelson the benefits of this reform will be
on a totally different scale from the concerns it raises.

>who would decide when the boundary of simplicity has been crossed?  who
>would be responsible for distilling a complex mess into a neat, manageable
>form?  the achievement of simplicity would just tip the balance of power
>towards one side or the other.  and the State would, of course, participate.

I understand why people are uneasy.  However, we've got to realize that we
have been doing this since the beginning of civilization.  This is nothing
new.  It just takes our awareness to a new level.

E.g. writing (as opposed to purely verbal language) was invented to make
the complexity of life manageable.  I'm sure it tipped the balance of
power toward some group.  Still we're glad they did it, after viewing the
big picture.

Also, we don't have the right not to follow the Constitution.  It was
somebody's idea and they just imposed it on everybody born afterwards.
Still, the questions of whose values the Constitution would favor
becomes miniscule compared to the importance of its existence.

The point I'm trying to make is that manageable laws is something on such
a scale.

>the tangle of our legal system is, at
>least, honest -- again, in form, not in content.  simplicity would be a
>mere gloss, a pretense of agreement.

Finally, I want to emphasize again that I want the TOTAL SYSTEM reformed into
a manageable, predictable environment for each player.  This could mean any
combination of simplifying the laws, clearly defining client-attorney
relationships, computerizing, restructuring the laws, taking care when
passing legeslation, etc.  Although manageability and predictability is
the goal IN GENERAL, I think that simplifying laws will turn out to be
the main part of the reform, given our PARTICULAR legal and social
realities.

-- Karl Wee

"As the best legal mind in New York, here's my advice: being right is
NEVER enough."
						-- Roy Cohn, lawyer for
						   Sen. MacCarthy, quoted from
						   his biographical film.