Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: The Problem is the Law (Was Re: "Full Employment Act"....)
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:55:02 GMT
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.

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>  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.   

Which rules are unnecessary should be the topic of discussion now.  That's
all I'm saying.  Why should we discuss that?  Because we don't have
enough analytical power to go around.  It's analogous to not having enough
money to go around and somebody announces we have to start spending cuts.
How to cut spending would be immaterial to that discussion.

Also, notice I said unnecssary COMPLEXITY, not unnecessary rules.  Getting
rid of complexity can be anything from cleaning up the structure, to
computerizing, to removing exceptions, to making clear rules on attroney-
client relationships, or any combination of the above.

The "inspiration" you mention is turning more and more into "special interest
control" these days, thanks to the complexity in the law which prevents
voters from taking firm stands on whether to create and change specific laws
and knowing what effects they would have.  Of course, as a result, we
effectively lose democracy.  This is THE problem this country has.  The
tragedy is that people are not aware of the complexity problem, so they
cannot even start to regain control from special interests.  THERE IS NO
OTHER WAY TO REGAIN CONTROL.  Think about it.

>> 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 whole purpose of rules is to keep things simple so we can keep on
controlling things.  This is the virtuous cycle that the very existence
of civilization depends on.  This has basically worked.   What we have
neglected is that civilization ALSO depends on the virtuous cycle of
keeping things simple in order to keep them simple.

>>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.

You mistook my meaning.  I meant to say we have a "higher level rule" that
says "we don't care about the effects of an individual's actions on society,
we only punish him if his actions are against the law", and the
existence of this rule is due to the need for simplicity.  Whether the
law in question is good or bad or overly simple is another topic.  This is
an example of society's unremovable need for simplicity.

>>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.

Notice I said "everything else being constant".  They won't be constant.
We will be able to make sound decisions to enhance our own and other people's
lives if we can trust the social and legal environment.  This is similar to
going from having no law to having a law: everything else being constant,
it's worse since we now have to follow rules.  But law makes it possible to
live together and have division of labor, creating a qualitatively better
life for all of us.

The whole point I've been trying to sell is that having laws that we can't
handle is worse than having manageable laws just like having no law is worse 
than having a law.  It is a qualitative difference which dwarfs other,
technical questions.

>>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....
>  .... As a software engineer, I am often responsible for fixing bugs in 
>  huge programs; ....  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....
>
>  ....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.

This just helps to illustrate my point.  We are able to handle so much
complexity in engineering projects PRECISELY because their information
is cleanly structured, so that each individual worker can handle his part with
confidence.  In the terms of our discussion, it is simple enough for each
worker.  It is also simple enough for the overall designer.  As a result,
we manage to build something that no single person can understand in entirety,
and make it work.

An engineering project would definitely fail if any worker were to face any
significant uncertaintly as to the results of his decisions.  In other words,
it is no accident when a product works, but a result of deliberate design to
structure the information into a healthy form.

I'm trying to say, the same goes for making society work and prosper.  We
WANT life to be complex and offer many choices, but the only way to make it
work is to keep things simple enough for the expertise of each player, 
as well as for the masters of society, the voters.  The alternative is
to play Russian roulette, and they have a way of not coming out good
in a complex system.

>  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.

The problem is we're not even aware of the complexity problem and starting
to discuss how best to restructure the legal system, even though it is
necessiated by simple logic.  As for current political and cultural forces, 
that's why I'm not posting this in talk.politics.misc.