From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: DWI
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:29:38 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <1992Jul20.204732.6335@beaver.cs.washington.edu> mckenzie@cs.washington.edu (Neil McKenzie) writes:
[...]
>Taken to the extreme, there should not be any laws at all.
>
>All laws are unfair, because they are inflexible and there are always
>extenuating circumstances.

[...]
>The problem is that it is just too difficult to handle every
>disagreement on a case-by-case basis -- it is too subjective and too
>time-consuming.

Sounds like a cop-out to me.  Seems like that's part of the cause-and-effect
relationship you discuss below, only applied self-referentially to the law
itself.  In other words, people want to regulate the hell out of each other,
but they don't want to "pay the price".  To establish laws that guarantee
a plethora of disputes and extenuating circumstances, and then to claim
that "it is too difficult to handle every disagreement on a case-by-case
basis" -- this amounts to a public declaration of {incompetence,laziness,
venality,irresponsibility,abdication/dereliction-of-duty,lack-of-wisdom},
does it not?

Of course, if there were enough people with enough wisdom to judge said
plethora of disputes and e-circumstances, they might be independent-minded
enough to resist being ruled by "great princes" (see below).  That's the
*real* reason for the "one-size-fits-all" methodology of the law advocated
by people who think it's "too subjective and too time-consuming" to
administer the law fairly -- it interferes with the rule of the "great
prince".  "Objective" is just a code-word for what fits the needs of the
"great princes"; everything that doesn't fit that is "subjective".

>                 Laws try to establish some objectivity.  They attempt
>to reflect empirical evidence with respect to cause and effect.  When a
>law fails this metric it should be abolished.  The DUI law is a good
>one because it satisfies the metric.  The open-container law fails the
>metric: it is at best redundant and at worst condones littering.

Not to quibble excessively but you mean "criterion" where you say "metric",
yes?  "Metric" is a label that is usually attached to a number.

I presume you mean a "cause-and-effect" criterion, i. e. DUI is a cause
(really, precondition) of more accidents (effect).  By the same criterion,
having an open container in the car is a cause of DUI, and by transitivity,
more accidents.  Hence *both* laws are *good* (i. e. they both meet said
criterion).  Maybe by "metric" you mean "fit-of-criterion"?

>It would be wonderful to live in a world without laws, but this is
>unrealistic.

So instead we substitute a virtual reality with an ever-increasing number
of laws.

>              The best bet is to make sure that the existing laws are
>objective, up-to-date and that the cause-and-effect relationship is
>well-established.

But let's do this using premises, logic and rules of inference optimized
for maximal unintelligibility to ordinary people.  In other words, dazzle
`em with bullshit.

>                   Bad laws should be reformed or eliminated.

This is the unrealistic part.

>                                                               For
>example there is much evidence concerning the medicinal use of
>marijuana to offset the effects of chemotherapy.  Yet marijuana is
>illegal.  But this is another topic for another day (and another
>newsgroup).

"Evidence" is something that can be ordered up in tank-car lots, like
"objectivity", "fairness", and FOIA-paper.  Where there's a monopoly,
there's an infinite supply.  Ever been to a "Fair Hearing"?

[...]
>The army: the great prince issues commands, founds states, vests families
>with fiefs.  Inferior people should not be employed.  (The I-Ching)

We could do with a whole lot less "great princes", IMO.  They are part of
the problem; the people who slavishly follow them, and believe in systems
that require "great princes", are the remainder of the problem.
Prince-employees *are* inferior people (ka-ching nextpleez!).
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.forsale